Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in
first and second language reading
comprehension
Chinedu Januarius Osuji
A thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in Applied
Linguistics
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex, UK.
April 2017
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my father, Mr. Christopher Sunday Arihiakawa
Osuji (Headmaster), and my sons, Chimechetalam and Chinemerem.
Abstract
This thesis explored cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in first and second
language reading comprehension (RC) among Igbo native speakers who are English
as Second Language (ESL) learners in Nigeria. The RC of ESL readers in Nigeria has
not previously been investigated. The three studies presented in this thesis explored
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in RC performance in Igbo (study 1), the
effect of L2 language proficiency and vocabulary size on the use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies in ESL reading (study 2), and the effect of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use on ESL RC (study 3), respectively.
To explore cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on first language RC
performance (study 1), participants did RC tasks in Igbo and completed a reading
comprehension strategies (RCSs) questionnaire. Participants reported a medium usage
level for ten out of the fourteen reading strategies shortlisted for the investigation.
Regression analysis suggests that their RC strategy use explained a significant
variance (28.6%) in the Igbo reading scores of the students. No significant difference
was recorded in the participants’ reported use of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies during the reading task.
In study 2, in addition to doing RC tasks in English and completing an RCSs
questionnaire, participants sat English language proficiency and vocabulary size tests.
High vocabulary size was significantly related to high use of cognitive reading
strategies, while low vocabulary size was related to low use of cognitive reading
strategies. L2 language proficiency had no effect on RCS use, and reading
comprehension strategy use had no effect on RC performance.
In study 3, participants did another set of reading tasks and completed a RCSs
questionnaire. Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use jointly had a significant
iii
positive effect on RC performance, but only metacognitive strategy use uniquely
contributed significantly to RC performance. The usage levels for cognitive and
metacognitive strategies distinguished high performers from low performers in the
RC test, but the cognitive strategy of translation was hardly used by this group of ESL
readers.
The study finally drew some general conclusions by comparing results from
the various studies. This study is an attempt to create awareness among teachers and
students in Nigerian schools, on the effect of reading strategies on reading
comprehension performance. The findings in the study may therefore contribute in
changing how teachers in Nigeria teach reading, and how readers undertake the
processing of written text, since it makes it clear that reading strategies, particularly
metacognitive strategies substantially facilitate RC. From a theoretical point of view,
this study examines the role of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use within the
compensatory model of L2 reading, and assesses how they relate to knowledge
sources like vocabulary knowledge in the model.
iv
Declaration
The report in this thesis is based on research carried out in the Department of
Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, United Kingdom. No part of this
thesis has been submitted for any other degree or qualification, and it is all my work,
unless referenced to the contrary in the text.
v
Acknowledgements
The reaction of my 87 years old father, sometime in September 2013, when I broke to
him the news of my scholarship to study for a PhD in the UK, remains very fresh in
my mind. My old father received the news with mixed feelings. At first, he was
extremely happy that at last I was going to study for my PhD, and wished that he
would be alive to see me actualize his dream of having a son that holds a PhD degree.
But soon after, my father, out of worry, began to cry because he felt I would no longer
be able to take care of him while I was in school (which never was the case). It was
quite an emotional moment. I am therefore extremely grateful to everybody who
directly or indirectly, has through his or her actions or inactions made my old father’s
dream of having a son with a PhD degree come true in his lifetime. The subsequent
lines are therefore dedicated to appreciating the support and encouragement provided
to me by those wonderful individuals and bodies, which has culminated in the
acquisition of this degree.
First of all, a very big thank you to my supervisor, Dr. Sophia Skoufaki, for
working painstakingly and tirelessly, during the course of my study, to provide the
guide needed to successfully complete my study. Sophia was a supervisor and a
mentor to me. She was truly the kind of person that every PhD candidate would pray
to have as a supervisor. Sophia’s profound desire to mentor me on academic writing
led her to suggesting that I should opt to write my thesis by article, which she saw as
an opportunity to provide to me mentorship in academic writing. I must confess that
the rigorous, and very challenging process of producing articles, which involves
writing and rewriting of drafts several times, has really impacted on my hitherto poor
academic writing skills. Although I cannot say it is ‘uhuru’ yet in terms of academic
vi
writing. However, Sophia should be credited for whatever progress that I have so far
recorded in respect of academic writing skills.
I would like to thank my supervisory board members, Dr. Karen RoehrBrackin and Prof. Monika S. Schmid. The role that the duo played in monitoring and
assessing the progress of my PhD studies is well appreciated. I warmly recall my last
face-to-face supervisory board meeting, and how it appeared simple and casual due to
the calm and friendly atmosphere created by these my unique teachers. I would like to
specifically thank Monika for also providing very valuable feedbacks on the draft of
my first article, as well as making available to me sample copies of PhD thesis by
article to guide me on the format of such thesis.
It is important to also appreciate the contribution of my research groups, the
Second Language Research Group (SLRG) and English Language Teaching (ELT)
research group, to the success of my PhD study. The weekly meetings organized by
these groups were substantially helpful in integrating me into the culture of
researching. In fact, the feedbacks provided by members during presentations were
very beneficial to my research. For example, the paper on statistical analysis of Likert
scale data, which was discussed at one of the SLRG sessions, was vital in justifying
some aspect of the statistical analysis conducted in my PhD study. I am grateful to all
the members of the research groups.
I would like to thank my very dear Mexican friends and course mates, Luis H.
Rodriguez Silva and Magnolia Negrete Cetina. These good friends, to a great extent,
filled the gap, which the absence of my family created in my life during my study.
Luis would regularly invite me to come over to his house to have lunch or dinner with
his lovely family. In fact, he would personally come to my flat to pick me in his car,
and also take me back to my accommodation whenever I was done with enjoying
vii
myself at his house. He and Magnolia will often invite me to watch Ronny,
Magnolia’s husband play traditional Mexican music at a Mexican restaurant in town.
Luis arranged the first and only boat ride in my life. He was really a loving friend
who appeared to enjoy my company. We would always sit together during lectures, or
to discuss statistics and other academic challenges after lectures. In fact, when Luis
left to return to Mexico, I was really scared of how my life in University of Essex,
Colchester campus, would proceed within the vacuum left behind by the departure of
a close friend who I highly cherished and loved.
My friends and colleagues in Federal College of Education, Yola, Nigeria,
also deserve my sincere thanks. Although I cannot mention all, however friends and
colleagues like Mr. Johnson Ogunremi, Dr. Benjamine Igbeaku, Mrs Chinwe Nwogu,
Mrs Patience Okoroafor, Mr. Emeka Timothy, Mr. Vincent Amuluche, Mr. Daifuru
Adamu, Mrs Chigozie Nnadi, etc. deserve to be mentioned for their various
contributions to making my PhD journey successful. Thank you Mr. Ogunremi for all
the support you provided to me, and even my family during the course of my study.
The personal sacrifices you made to ensure that my study in the UK did not suffer any
setback would remain indelible in my mind. I am greatly indebted to you. Thank you
Dr. Igbeaku, and all the other friends and colleagues mentioned for the wonderful
support you all gave me during my PhD study data collection. The success of this
PhD journey was in part a consequence of the support that I received from all of you
during the stressful exercise of data collection.
Let me remember in a special way, the contribution of a dear friend and
colleague who supported me immensely starting from the time I was applying for the
PhD admission, to the time I collected data for my PhD study. He was always there to
provide the much-needed technical support to me, given my very limited knowledge
viii
of computers, and lack of access to a reliable Internet network. His office was always
open to me, allowing me to freely use his Internet anytime I wanted. At any point that
I encountered a technical hitch, he was ever willing and ready to assist, and he always
had solution to every problem. He was really a computer guru, and with him around, I
had no need to worry over any computer problem. When virus corrupted my PhD
study data files, I almost had heart attack because I thought nothing could be done to
salvage the files again. But, as a last resort, I decided to phone him, as I usually do
whenever I encounter any problem with computer. He asked me to meet him at his
office, which I did. And within a very short time, my dear friend, Idrees Ihas Adamu,
was able to restore all my files. Thank you my good friend. You have left this world,
but your deeds to me shall remain everlasting in my mind. It is quite painful that you
had to leave at a very short notice, when I was not there. Well, rest in peace my dear
friend, and as long as there is still the breath of life left in me, I will always remember
you. It is unfortunate that you did not live to read this thesis, but thank God that I
have inscribed your name on this page of my thesis so that whoever finds the thesis
worthy to consult, he or she would at least notice that you were among those that
contributed greatly in making my dream, and my old father’s dream of a son with
PhD, to come true in the life of the old man. Adieu Idrees! Adieu my good friend!
The support of the wonderful student volunteers from F.C.E Yola and Federal
University of Technology, Yola (F.U.T.Y), who sacrificed their precious and very
limited study times to participate in my study deserve my sincere appreciation. It
really touched my heart how you all responded to my call, abandoning all you were
doing just to support my project. Before I collected data for my PhD, I was not really
aware that these young students would show this degree of commitment to research at
no cost. When I asked some of the participants why they volunteered to come all the
ix
way to participate. Their response was, ‘for the love of research’. And indeed they
participated for the love of research because there could not have been any other
incentive apart from that. Thank you my great students, lovers and supporters of
research. By supporting my research you people contributed enormously in making
my dream, but most especially my old father’s dream of a son with a PhD degree, to
come true in his lifetime. I am very grateful to you all.
At this juncture I would like to thank my sponsors, Tertiary Education Trust
Fund (TETFund) of Nigeria, and Federal College of Education (F.C.E), Yola Nigeria
for giving me the opportunity to study for my PhD in the UK. By a stroke of fate I
became the first, and unfortunately the last staff of F.C.E Yola to be sponsored to
study for PhD in the UK under the academic staff development scheme of TETFund.
Although it pains me to realize that probably no other staff of the college may in
future get the wonderful opportunity to study in the UK again as I did. Sadly, it is a
reason to give glory to God, and thank the College Management, under the leadership
of Prof. Sa’ad Abdul-mumin, for this privilege given to me.
It was Julius Caesar in Shakespeare Julius Caesar who once said, ‘the things
that touch us most are treated last’. Therefore lastly I would like to thank in a special
way my beloved wives, Uchenna and Diana, for the huge and unwavering support
provided to me throughout the period of my PhD journey in the UK. In the face of
numerous challenges arising from my absence, you persevered. You made a lot of
sacrifices, and endured a lot of hardships to ensure that you provided the support I
needed. By the grace of God, the journey has finally come to an end, and your
perseverance has triumphed. And to my little boys, Chimechetalam and Chinemerem,
who would always want to know when daddy would be coming home. Daddy would
x
be home soon, and never to leave you again. Thank you all for your patience. I LOVE
YOU ALL!
xi
Table of Contents
Dedication............................................................................................................................2
Abstract........................................................................................................................................iii
Declaration..........................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................vi
Chapter1..............................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.1. Definitionsofreadingcomprehensionstrategy(RCS)......................................5
1.2. ClassificationsofRCSs...................................................................................................7
1.3. Cognitivestrategy(CS)...............................................................................................10
1.4. Metacognitivestrategy(MS).....................................................................................12
1.5. CognitiveandmetacognitivestrategyuseduringL1andL2reading........14
1.6. CognitiveandmetacognitivestrategyuseinL2readingresearch..............21
1.7. StrategyinstructionresearchinL2reading.......................................................26
1.8. Strategyelicitationandassessment......................................................................29
1.9. Overviewofthethesis................................................................................................31
1.10. References....................................................................................................................35
Chapter2...........................................................................................................................45
2. Cognitiveandmetacognitivestrategyuseduringreadingbynative
speakersofIgbo..............................................................................................................45
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................45
2.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................46
2.2. Cognitiveandmetacognitivestrategiesinreadingcomprehension..........48
2.3. Method.............................................................................................................................54
2.3.1. Participants.............................................................................................................................54
2.3.2. Measures...................................................................................................................................55
2.4. Datacollectionprocedure.........................................................................................59
2.5. Dataanalysisprocedure............................................................................................60
2.6. Results..............................................................................................................................60
Fig.1:Reportedaverageuseofcognitiveandmetacognitivestrategies........................69
2.7. Discussion.......................................................................................................................69
2.8. Conclusion......................................................................................................................75
2.9. References......................................................................................................................77
AppendixA:Biodatadataquestionnaire.........................................................................85
AppendixB:IgboRCpassages..............................................................................................89
Chapter3...........................................................................................................................93
3. ExploringthereadingcomprehensionstrategiesofESLlearners:the
roleofsecondlanguagevocabularysizeandproficiency................................93
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................93
3.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................94
3.1.1. Readingcomprehensionstrategies(RCSs)................................................................95
3.1.2. CognitiveandmetacognitivestrategiesinL2readingcomprehension........96
3.1.3. L2proficiencyandreadingcomprehensionstrategyuse...................................98
3.1.4. Vocabularysizeinreadingcomprehensionstrategyuse.................................102
3.2. Researchquestions...................................................................................................105
3.3. Method..........................................................................................................................105
3.3.1. Participants..........................................................................................................................105
3.4. Procedures..................................................................................................................106
3.5. Results...........................................................................................................................113
xii
3.6. Discussion....................................................................................................................122
3.7. Conclusion...................................................................................................................129
3.8. References...................................................................................................................131
AppendixA:Biodataquestionnaire................................................................................139
AppendixB:Readingcomprehensiontest....................................................................141
Chapter4.........................................................................................................................146
4. ExploringtheeffectofcognitiveandmetacognitivestrategyuseonESL
learners’readingcomprehensionperformanceinNigeria...........................146
Abstract....................................................................................................................................146
4.1. Introduction................................................................................................................147
4.1.1. Cognitiveandmetacognitivestrategies...................................................................148
4.1.2. ReadingintheL2...............................................................................................................150
4.1.3. StrategyuseinL2reading.............................................................................................152
4.2. Method..........................................................................................................................155
4.2.1. Participants..........................................................................................................................155
4.2.2. Measures................................................................................................................................157
4.2.3. Readingcomprehensionmeasures............................................................................157
4.2.4. Cognitiveandmetacognitivestrategymeasure...................................................159
4.3. Datacollectionprocedure......................................................................................160
4.4. Results...........................................................................................................................161
4.5. Discussion....................................................................................................................171
4.6. Limitationsofthestudyandconclusion............................................................174
4.7. References...................................................................................................................176
AppendixA:Biodataquestionnaire................................................................................182
AppendixB:Readingcomprehensiontasks.................................................................184
Chapter5.........................................................................................................................192
5. Summary,synthesisandprospect..................................................................192
5.1. Summary......................................................................................................................193
5.2. Synthesisandconclusions......................................................................................199
5.3. Limitationsofthestudies.......................................................................................204
5.4. Implicationsofthestudies.....................................................................................206
5.5. Futureresearch..........................................................................................................208
5.6. References...................................................................................................................212
AppendixA:Cognitiveandmetacognitivestrategiesquestionnaire...................216
AppendixB:Oxfordplacementtest................................................................................219
6. AppendixC:Vocabularysizetest....................................................................223
xiii
Chapter 1
1.
Introduction
Second language (L2) learning is said to be faster for learners who are able to regulate
their learning through the use of strategies (Anderson, 2005). In theory, learners
employ various strategies to cope with cognitive challenges. In reading, these
strategies could be cognitive or metacognitive in nature.
The use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to cope with the challenge
of comprehending written texts in the first and second language has generated interest
among researchers. Many studies conducted in Europe and America have indicated
that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use contributes to increased performance in
reading comprehension (RC) (e.g. Block, 1986, 1992; Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003b).
Studies have also indicated that the use of these strategies and its effect on RC
performance depend on factors like the nature of the reading task and the reader’s
reading or linguistic proficiency level. For example, studies have indicated that texts
that are challenging to readers evoke the use of more varied strategies than texts that
readers find easy to understand (Denton et al., 2015; Trabasso et al., 1995), although
Lee (2015) found no effect of text difficulty on strategy use. Others claim that high
proficiency readers employ the use of varied cognitive and metacognitive strategies
and use them more effectively during reading (Phakiti, 2003; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001), although some studies too found no such effect (e.g. Brantmeier, 2000; Sarig,
1987; Yamashita, 2002). Studies have also indicated that varying cultural and literacy
backgrounds could affect the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Adamson,
1990; Oxford, 1990; Parry, 1996; Rahimi & Katal, 2012).
A review of several studies that investigated the cognitive processes
influencing RC in the L1 indicates that most were conducted in America and Europe,
1
2
and recently some in Asia. In addition, the effect of reading strategies on reading
comprehension was not measured in many of these studies, probably because thinkaloud protocols and retrospective interviews were used to elicit data. Studies that
measured the contribution of cognitive and metacognitive processing to RC mostly
used adolescent readers of American, European, or Asian descent. No study so far has
investigated the cognitive and metacognitive processes of adult L1 readers of
indigenous African languages. Similarly, in L2 RC studies, most of the investigations
on the cognitive processes influencing L2 RC involved mainly English L2 readers of
either European or Asian descent. Such studies were often in the context of English as
a foreign language (EFL). To the best of my knowledge, there is hardly any study that
investigated the cognitive and metacognitive processes influencing RC in English as a
second language (ESL) in an African context, where English is a lingua franca.
Reading processes in the L2, which involves interaction between top-down
and bottom-up processes, ‘consist of clusters of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies in interaction with one another’ (Macaro, 2006: 330). The L2 reading
processes therefore aim to make L2 text comprehensible, with the aid of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies as constituents of the processes. However, while studies have
indicated that the use of these cognitive strategies by readers during L2 reading
processes tend to depend on certain factors (some have earlier been mentioned), one
factor that could influence cognitive and metacognitive processing in L2 RC, which
has received little or no attention is L2 vocabulary knowledge. How readers’
vocabulary knowledge in the L2 could influence cognitive and metacognitive
processing during L2 RC is yet to be explored. Although researchers in L2 RC studies
have investigated the influence of L2 proficiency on cognitive and metacognitive
processes in the L2, their findings are conflicting, and L2 proficiency are often
3
vaguely conceptualized with no effort made to specifically measure the construct in
most studies as would be shown in the brief literature in section 3.4. The four major
competences associated with L2 proficiency are ‘grammatical competence,
sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence’
(Ghafournia and Afghari, 2013: 21). Given that sociolinguistic and discourse
competences are very difficult to measure within the scope of the current study,
decision was made to operationalize L2 proficiency as just grammatical competence.
Therefore the L2 grammatical knowledge of the participants in the current study was
measured with the grammar section of the Oxford Placement Test (Allan, 2004) to
determine their L2 proficiency.
So, it is probably plausible to argue that a thorough examination of the
cognitive processes underlying reading in the first or second language has not yet
been conducted given that research in cognitive and metacognitive processes, in its
current state, tends to have excluded a significant proportion of L1 and L2 readers in
indigenous languages and communities outside Europe, Asia, and America.
Moreover, the virtual absence of research on how L2 vocabulary knowledge could
influence cognitive and metacognitive processes during L2 text processing, and the
conflicting research findings on the influence of L2 proficiency on cognitive and
metacognitive processing in L2 reading process, all point to the fact that the cognitive
processes underlying reading comprehension in the L2 have not been thoroughly
examined.
This thesis aims to start filling the research gaps mentioned above by examining
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in the L1 and ESL reading comprehension
of adult native speakers of Igbo, an indigenous language in Nigeria. The participants
were high school (secondary school) graduates enrolled in the National Certificate of
4
Education (NCE) programme at a Federal College of Education, and graduate
programmes at a Federal University of Technology, located in the northeastern part of
Nigeria. The NCE programme was designed to produce teachers that will teach at
primary and junior secondary school levels in Nigeria. Qualification into NCE
programmes, like graduate programmes in Nigeria, is based on the candidates’
performance at either the General Certificate of Education (GCE), West African
Examination council (WAEC), or National Examination Council (NECO) tests, and
Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) universities, polytechnics and
colleges of education matriculation examinations. The participants’ L1 literacy levels
were diverse, with 12% of the participants rating their L1 literacy low, 16% fairly
low, 36% fairly high, 24% high, and 12% very high. However, the study did not
examine how the participants’ L1 literacy could have impacted their L2 strategy use,
evidence of which has been reported in some previous studies (e.g. Upton and LeeThompson, 2001; van Gelderen et al., 2007). Studies have indicated that L1 literacy
has a prominent role in L2 literacy.
Although the current study was not designed to test relationship between L1 and
L2 literacy, it probably would have been interesting to examine the role L1 literacy of
this group of readers with diverse levels of L1 literacy could have played in their L2
strategy use. One approach to doing this would be to compare the participants’
reported L1 literacy levels with their L2 reading performance. A significant positive
correlation would indicate that L1 literacy levels could have played a role in the L2
strategy use of the participants. However, if the result is to the contrary, it could be
interpreted to suggest otherwise.
Nonetheless, studies reported in this thesis only examined how the use of a
cluster of cognitive and metacognitive strategies identified by Phakiti (2003) as
5
cognitive and metacognitive strategies L2 readers use during reading comprehension
tasks could relate to the reading comprehension performance of this group of readers.
Macaro (2006: 327) observes that ‘for a strategy to be effective in promoting learning
or improved performance, it must be combined with other strategies either
simultaneously or in sequence’ thereby creating what is called strategy cluster. The
effect of strategy clustering on performance during reading tasks has been recorded in
previous studies (e.g. Graham, 1997). Using factor analysis Phakiti (2003) identified a
cluster of cognitive and metacognitive strategies L2 readers use during reading tasks
to aid performance. Chapters 2 and 4 will therefore report studies, which examined
the extent to which the use of these cognitive, and metacognitive strategies by Igbo
L1 speakers relates to RC performance in Igbo and English. Chapter 3 will report a
study examining the role of ESL vocabulary knowledge and language proficiency in
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during ESL reading by native speakers of
Igbo. The concluding chapter will summarise the research results of the studies
reported in the previous chapters and will draw general conclusions from them.
The remainder of the current chapter will first define relevant terms and will then
provide a broad overview of the literature on L1 and L2 reading strategy research.
1.1.
Definitions of reading comprehension strategy (RCS)
Learner strategies have been distinguished into ‘learning strategies’ and ‘use
strategies’. ‘Learning strategies’ are used for language learning or acquisition, and
‘use strategies’ are employed by learners to enhance performance (Cohen, 1998;
Phakiti, 2003). RCSs are categorized as use strategies, and have mostly been defined
with emphasis on their conscious and deliberate nature. According to O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) (cited in McNeil, 2010: 885), ‘reading comprehension strategies are
6
referred to as the conscious actions readers use to repair breakdowns in
comprehension (cognitive strategies) or the deliberate actions readers use to monitor
and oversee those attempts at repair (metacognitive strategies)’. Cohen (1986: 133)
and Duffy et al. (1986: 239) also stress the conscious and deliberate nature of RCSs.
It is obvious that all the definitions for RCSs emphasize the conscious mental
processes involved in RCS use. In these definitions, there was no mention of the
automated non-conscious processing (reading skill) that readers do during reading
process. Therefore, most researchers distinguish reading strategy from reading skill.
These terms have sometimes been used interchangeably in the reading comprehension
literature, and therefore they deserve some discussion. The terms skill and strategy
have varying historical uses in psychology and education (Afflerbach et al., 2008).
For example, while skill has been used in the fields of Psychology and Education for
over a century, the use of the term strategy became prominent starting from the 1970s
with the advent of information processing models used to describe the various
cognitive processes that individuals adopt to attain set goals like the goal of
comprehending texts (Afflerbach et al., 2008; Manoli & Papadopoulou, 2012). Skill
could be seen as referring to a learning outcome or behaviour that is a product of
regular practice. Therefore, the automated act of decoding and comprehending written
texts, which readers exhibit with speed, efficiency, and fluency after constant practice
and interaction with written texts, is considered reading skill. By contrast, conscious
and purposeful use of a mental process is a reading strategy. In the opinion of
Urquhart & Weir (1998), reading skill constitutes cognitive abilities, which readers
possess and are able to deploy when interacting with written texts. It however
operates without the reader’s deliberate control or conscious awareness, which
distinguishes it from reading strategy.
7
The next section looks at some of the ways reading strategies have been
categorised in the reading literature.
Classifications of RCSs
1.2.
The classification of RCSs is problematic to some extent (O’Malley and Chamot,
1990). There is a preponderance of classifications available for the construct.
However, the various classifications fall into either of the two broad groups, one
relating to bottom-up processing and the other to top-down processing. Some of the
available RCS classifications include those proposed by Block (1986), Carrell (1989),
O’Malley et al. (1985), Pressley and Afflerbach (1995), Sarig (1987), etc. In this
section, I will briefly examine some of these taxonomies with the aim to highlight
their dimensions without necessarily going into detailed discussion on them beginning
with Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) classification.
Pressley and Afflerbach’s classification is based on the 150 conscious
activities they identified as used by readers. According to Upton and Lee-Thompson
(2001, p. 474), ‘their rubric is by far the most comprehensive one that has been
developed to describe the process of L1 reading comprehension’.
Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) grouped RCSs into three types, referring to
them as ‘activities’: Type A, identifying strategies; Type B, monitoring strategies; and
Type C, evaluating strategies. Identifying strategies (Type A) enable the reader to
construct the meaning of the text before, during and even after reading a text. These
are strategies that readers use to get a general understanding of the meaning of a text.
These strategies may involve explicitly looking for key words or information in a text
or deciding on pieces of information that are or are not important in a given text.
Monitoring strategies (Type B) on the other hand help the reader to regulate
8
comprehension and the learning process. They are metacognitive processes, which
can also be employed by the reader during and after the reading activity. They include
the observation of text characteristics, reading behaviours or specific actions taken by
the reader in order to respond to certain textual demands. Evaluation strategies (Type
C) involve readers making some evaluation of the reading process to approve or
disapprove of it.
The classification of RCSs proposed by O’Malley et al. (1985) is based on
Brown and Palincsar (1982) classification. Brown and Palincsar categorized strategies
into metacognitive and cognitive. O’Malley et al. (1985) added ‘social mediation’ as a
third dimension of the classification. The O’Malley et al. classification consists of 23
strategies; 7 of them are metacognitive, 14 cognitive, and 2 social mediation
strategies. Because it is unclear how their ‘social mediation’ strategy qualifies as a
RCS, the decision was made not to discuss it here.
The metacognitive strategies referred to as higher order executive skills
involve planning, monitoring or evaluating the learning or comprehension process
(Brown et al., 1983). Cognitive strategies on the other hand ‘operate directly on
incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning’ (O’Malley and
Chamot, 1990: 44).
In the classification of RCSs proposed by Block (1986), RCSs consist of two
groups, ‘general comprehension strategies’ and ‘local linguistic strategies’. The
‘general comprehension strategies’ (top-down processing) involve comprehension
gathering and monitoring. This category includes strategies such as anticipation of
context, recognition of text structure, and integration of information. The ‘local
linguistic strategies’ (bottom-up processing) according to Block represent the reader’s
attempt to construct meaning from text based on specific linguistic cues from the text.
9
This category includes strategies such as paraphrasing, rereading, and questioning the
meaning of a sentence or clause or unknown word.
Sarig (1987) proposed a four-category classification of RCS. Category 1
referred to as ‘technical-aid moves’ is a strategy in which readers employ technical
aids such as skimming, scanning, and skipping to facilitate the processing of texts.
Category 2, ‘clarification and simplification moves’ is a strategy in which readers
attempt to bring clarity to texts by simplifying utterances in them. It includes
strategies such as syntactic simplification, words meanings decoding, and using
synonyms. Category three called ‘coherence-detecting moves’ is a strategy that
requires readers to use textual or extra-textual cues to establish text coherence. It
includes use of background knowledge, identification of key information in a text,
and use of textual schemata. Category four called ‘monitoring moves’ refers to the
monitoring of reading by readers involving some degree of conscious planning,
correction of mistakes, continuous self-evaluation during the reading process, etc.
A RCS classification was also proposed by Carrell (1989: 126). It is based on
Gough (1972) bottom-up and top-down processes in reading. Carrell broadly
classified RCSs into two, ‘local strategies’ (bottom-up) and ‘global strategies’ (topdown). ‘Local strategies’ according to Carrell refer to ‘those having to do with soundletter, word meaning, sentence syntax, and text details’ (Carrell, 1989: 126), while
‘global strategies’ consists of background knowledge, textual organization, and text
gist.
This review of some of the classifications reveals that researchers often
conceptualize the same strategies differently. For example, strategies classified as
bottom-up and top-down strategies could, by their description, also be referred to as
cognitive strategies: bottom-up strategies involve scanning and using context cues to
10
construct meaning from texts, while top-down strategies involve skimming and
activating background knowledge to facilitate comprehension, and these tasks are
associated with cognitive strategies in Phakiti’s (2003) classification. Similarly, most
of the tasks associated with global and problem-solving strategies according to
Mokhtari and Reichard (2002: 259) are associated with cognitive strategies in
Phakiti’s conceptualization of cognitive strategies, although, they are conceived as
metacognitive strategies by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002).
For most researchers, however, metacognitive strategies involve planning,
monitoring of comprehension and evaluation of strategy use (Chou, 2013; Oxford,
2011; Phakiti, 2003, 2006;). It is believed that cognitive and metacognitive strategies
are the two fundamental strategies that readers use for reading (Chou, 2013). These
two strategies, which arguably constitute an amalgamation of most strategies
associated with reading comprehension, are the focus of the current study. The next
section explains the construct of cognitive strategy, while the subsequent section
explains that of metacognitive strategy.
1.3.
Cognitive strategy (CS)
The relationship that exists between cognitive and metacognitive strategies makes
defining them as separate constructs difficult. Veenman et al. (2006) observe that
metacognition is ‘contingent on cognition’, which invariably suggests that
metacognitive strategies (MSs) are also contingent on cognitive strategies (CSs).
Metacognition ‘is a higher-order agent overlooking and governing the cognitive
system, while simultaneously being part of it’ (Veenman et al., 2006: 5). In the same
vein it could be argued that MSs are also higher-order executive agents overlooking
and governing the use of CSs.
11
CSs have been defined as ‘deliberate actions readers take when
comprehension problems develop’ (Sheorey and Mokhtari, 2001: 431). They are
invoked for the purpose of making ‘cognitive progress’ (Flavell, 1979: 909). A
cognitive strategy could be to underline some sections of a text, reread portions of or
an entire text to increase understanding, or reduce reading speed when comprehension
is threatened.
In addition to describing CSs as actions or activities that tend to apply in the
physical realm, they have also been described in relation to the mental processes that
underlie them. Oxford (2011: 44) prefers to refer to CSs as ‘cognitive processing’.
They operate at three different stages, ‘the declarative, associative, and procedural
knowledge stages’. The declarative stage, said to be ‘conscious, effortful, halting, and
nonhabitual’ (Chou, 2013: 176), is a platform that allows learners to employ strategies
to aid their ability to notice and cope with new information. At the associative stage,
strategies are used by learners to practice newly acquired information on a learning
task, and at the procedural stage, strategies used for processing new information at the
associative stage become automatized, beyond the conscious control of the learner,
and can now be deployed with less effort to the point of being an unconscious
habitual behaviour (Chou, 2013; Oxford, 2011).
Bimmel et al. (2001: 511) identified three main groups of strategies used by
readers. Group 1 strategies involve the ‘use of linguistic and non-linguistic prior
knowledge’; they are the strategies involving predicting, deducing or inferencing, and
elaborating. Group 2 strategies involve the ‘use of text elements with a high
information value’; they involve ‘skimming, looking for key fragments, making notes,
questioning, and summarizing’ (ibid). Group 3 strategies involve the ‘use of structuremarking elements in the text’; they are strategies such as connecting words or phrases,
12
constitute the third main group of strategies. Although this conceptualization is not
exhaustive, the strategies identified by Bimmel and his colleagues constitute cognitive
strategies with the exception of ‘questioning’, which seems more of a metacognitive
strategy than a cognitive strategy according to Phakiti (2003). It is however important
to note that Bimmel et al.’s (2001) classification was of all the strategic activities
readers engage in, not of CSs in particular.
Phakiti’s (2003a, 2003b) conceptualization of CSs relates to Bimmel et al.’s
(2001) classification. Like Oxford (2011), Phakiti (2003b: 651) sees CSs as ‘directly
related to the target language and world knowledge of the learners, which allow them
to construct meaning from text and to perform a given task’. Inspired by the works of
Alderson (2000), Baker and Brown (1984), O’Malley & Chamot (1990), Oxford
(1990) and Purpura (1999), Phakiti (2003b: 651) conceived CSs to include ‘making
predictions, translating, summarizing, linking with prior knowledge or experience,
applying grammar rules, and guessing meaning from text’.
1.4.
Metacognitive strategy (MS)
MSs have generally been conceptualized as consisting of planning, monitoring and
evaluating the learning or reading process. However, when it comes to identifying
activities that constitute MSs in reading, researchers’ opinions vary. For example,
Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001: 431) conceptualized MSs as ‘advanced planning and
comprehension monitoring techniques’. This conceptualization does not deviate
entirely from the general conceptualization of MSs. However, some of the ten
activities identified in their conceptualization as constituting MSs are considered CSs
by other researchers. For example, activities like using text features, (MET6), context
clues (MET7), typographical aids (e.g. italics) (MET8), and predicting or guessing
13
text meaning (MET9), (which fall within inferencing), are classified as CSs in Phakiti
(2003a, 2003b).
Phakiti (2003a, 2003b) conceptualized MSs as involving planning, monitoring
and evaluating of the learning process or in tackling a given cognitive task. In
Phakiti’s model, planning, described as the previewing and overviewing of the
organization of a task consists of advanced preparation, problem identification, goal
setting or selective attention, self-management, and goal prioritization. Monitoring
and evaluating, described as ‘checking, verifying, or correcting reading performance
against standards while or after completing reading’, involve double-checking,
performance evaluation, strategy monitoring and evaluation, and problem monitoring
and evaluation (p.699).
Oxford’s (2011) conceptualization of MSs bears some similarities with
Phakiti’s (2003a, 2003b) conceprualization. In Oxford’s model, metacognitive
strategies involve focusing, planning, obtaining information, organizing them,
coordinating, monitoring and evaluating the construction of L2 knowledge based on
the cognitive process. However, obtaining information, which was identified as a
metacognitive activity by Oxford (2011), never featured in Phakiti’s (2003a, 2003b)
or Sheorey and Mokhtari’s (2001) conceptualizations of MSs.
In this thesis, the operationalization of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
follows the conceptualization of the constructs in Phakiti (2003b, 2008). However
cognitive and metacognitive strategies will be examined as ‘state strategies’ rather
than ‘trait strategies’. This means that the study will investigate the participants’
strategic regulation of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during reading tests,
as against examining the participants’ general awareness of strategic knowledge. This
14
is due to the fact that the construct of ‘trait strategies’ for cognitive and metacognitive
strategy, presumed to be a stable trait, was found to be unstable in Phakiti (2008).
Section 1.5 will review studies that concurrently investigated cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use during L1 and L2 reading, while in section 1.6, the review
of studies that investigated cognitive and metacognitive strategy use only in L2
reading will be presented.
1.5.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during L1 and
L2 reading
Many reading strategy studies that concurrently investigated L1 and L2 reading have
been conducted to test the Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis (LTH) and the Linguistic
Interdependence Hypothesis (LIH). The LTH posits that there may be a threshold of
linguistic competence that detracts from the effect of bilingualism on cognitive ability
(Cummins, 1976). This therefore suggests that ‘in order to read in a second language,
a level of second language linguistic ability must be achieved’ (Bernhadt & Kamil,
1995). The LIH, on the other hand, suggests that L1 and L2 reading share the same
underlying dimension (Cummins, 1979). According to the LIH, once learners are
competent in their L1 reading, they possess the ability to transfer such reading
competence to their L2 reading (Coady, 1979; Koda, 2005). By contrast, according to
the LTH, such transfer of strategic competence is only possible when one’s L2
proficiency has also reached a certain threshold (Cziko, 1980; Devine, 1987). Brisbois
(1995: 577) claims that ‘language skills do transfer, allowing language students,
particularly upper level students, who have reached the necessary language threshold,
to capitalize upon their L1 skills in order to make sense of the L2’.
15
Several studies have compared the L1 and L2 reading processes of the same
participants (e.g., Sarig, 1987; Schoonen et al., 1998; Stevenson et al., 2007; Upton
and Lee-Thompson, 2001; van Gelderen et al., 2007; Young and Oxford, 1997). Some
of these studies found a positive relationship between L1 and L2 reading processes
(e.g., Sarig, 1987; Upton and Lee-Thompson, 2001; van Gelderen et al., 2007),
thereby suggesting support for the LIH, while others found no such relationship (e.g.,
Schoonen et al., 1998; Stevenson et al., 2007; Young & Oxford, 1997), indicating
support for the LTH. In a study involving eight female Israeli teenagers, Sarig (1987)
investigated the high-level processing skills of the participants when they read in their
L1 Hebrew and L2 English. The result revealed that the readers used, in a very similar
way, their high-level processing skills, operationalized as identifying main ideas and
synthesizing the overall message, when they read in both languages.
This subject was approached differently by Koda (1990) who studied the
effect of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading processing by examining L1
orthographic influence on L2 reading comprehension processes. 62 proficient L1
readers of a morphographic (Japanese) or phonographic (Arabic and Spanish)
language, and control group of 21 native speakers of English participated in the study.
Participants read two passages in English in an experimental or control condition.
Sanskrit symbols were used to substitute names for the fish and cocktails in the two
passages read by participants in the experimental condition. Pronounceable English
nonsense words were substituted for the Sanskrit symbols in the two passages when
read in the control condition. The study concludes that there is ‘L1 orthographic
influence on cognitive strategies used in L2 reading’ (p. 404), based on the fact that
reading speed among readers of L1 phonographic languages (Arabic, English, and
Spanish) decreased significantly when they read texts with Sanskrit symbols in the
16
experimental condition, which was not the case with readers of L1 morphographic
language (Japanese). Koda therefore argued that cognitive transfer occurs during L2
reading.
Upton and Lee-Thompson’s (2001) study differed slightly from the two
previous studies in the sense that participants in this study read only in the L2 but
were encouraged to speak in the L1 during think-aloud protocols and retrospective
interviews. The study investigated how L2 readers use L1 cognitive processes, and
how such L1 cognitive processes help with L2 reading comprehension. Participants
were 10 native speakers of Chinese and 10 of Japanese at three different proficiency
levels of English studying in a university in the US. The study was particularly
interested in mental translation (Kern, 1994), or switching to L1 to aid comprehension
in the L2 as a common strategy among L2 readers. The results indicated that the
participants, particularly at the intermediate and advanced levels of proficiency in
English, relied highly on the L1 to aid comprehension in L2 reading. A substantial
proportion of the cognitive (‘type A strategies’, which aimed at identifying and
learning text content) and metacognitive strategies (‘type B strategies’, which
monitored cognitive processes) that the readers in the study employed, particularly the
intermediate and advanced ESL readers, were verbalized in the L1. The researchers
concluded that L1 is active during L2 reading, but reliance on L1 declines as L2
proficiency increases. This categorization of RCSs was based on Pressley and
Afflerbach (1995) classification on which the study was based. It is however doubtful
if verbalizing thought in L1 during a think-aloud session could indicate that the L1
was active during L2 reading. This finding could also be attributed to the learners’ not
being fluent in the L2 and, consequently, preferring to speak in the L1.
17
van Gelderen et al. (2007) adopted a longitudinal design to investigate the
relationship between RC development in L1 and L2 among Dutch L1 learners of EFL.
389 secondary-school students from grades 8 through 10 participated in the study.
Data was collected three times over a period of three years. In the study, Dutch was
considered L1 to both native and nonnative speakers because it was the dominant
language and all the participants were fluent in it. Participants read six L1 and seven
L2 texts. Comprehension for all the texts was measured via multiple-choice questions.
The study found a strong relation, measured via structural equation modeling,
between L1 and L2 RC at the early phase of L2 reading, which strengthened as the
readers advanced in class. This finding was interpreted as congruent with the LIH or
the transfer hypothesis since it suggested that reading in the L1 and L2 are similar in
this case even as the students progress academically. Metacognitive knowledge was
also substantially related to RC performance of all grade levels in L1 and L2 reading,
which was considered a further indication of the transfer hypothesis.
However, in related studies by Stevenson et al., (2007), Tercanlioglu (2004),
and Young and Oxford (1997), no relationship was found between L1 and L2 reading
processes. Young and Oxford reported that when reading texts, the participants
employed higher-level processing strategies to read L1 (English) texts, while they
used lower-level processing strategies to read L2 (Spanish) texts. Similar results were
found in Tercanlioglu (2004) and Stevenson et al. (2007).
Tercanlioglu (2004) investigated the use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL
contexts. The participants were 17 postgraduate non-native-English-speaking
international students from different countries and English speaking British students,
all enrolled in a school of Education in the UK. Reading comprehension was
measured with three English texts. Data on reading comprehension strategies was
18
elicited via audiotaped interviews. The results show that cognitive strategies were
used more frequently. However, while the L1 readers reported higher frequency usage
for metacognitive strategies, the L2 readers reported higher frequency usage for
support strategies. Interestingly, the study found no difference in the RC performance
of the two groups that could be attributed to differences in strategy use.
Stevenson et al. (2007) is a study with similar aims. It compared the L1
(Dutch) and L2 (English) reading strategies of 22 Dutch high school students studying
English in an EFL context, using think-aloud protocols. Reading strategy use was
examined under three dimensions: a) ‘Orientation of processing’ (i.e., whether
strategies are directed towards content or language), b) ‘Type of processing’ (i.e.
whether strategies involve regulating the reading process, processing the meaning of
the text, or rereading the text), otherwise called cognitive and metacognitive
processing, and c) ‘linguistic Domain of Processing’ (i.e. whether strategies are
directed towards text elements at levels below, at, or above the clause) (Stevenson et
al., 2007: 116). Participants individually read four argumentative texts, two Dutch,
two English, concurrently verbalizing their thoughts. Results indicated that in respect
of ‘Orientation of Processing’, participants used more language-oriented strategies
than content oriented strategies when reading in EFL than in Dutch. The researchers
attributed this finding to the high use of the L1-translation strategy by the participants
when they read the English texts. In terms of the ‘Type of processing dimension’,
readers in the study used a higher proportion of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
while reading in EFL than in the L1. To explain this finding, the researchers assumed
that the readers had more frequent challenges with understanding the language of the
EFL than the L1 text. In terms of ‘Domain of processing’, the study found that readers
used higher proportion of above-clause strategies in EFL than in Dutch. This study
19
did not examine, however, the effect of the use of these strategies on RC in the two
languages. The inability of the participants in these studies to employ similar RCSs to
read L1 and L2 texts could be a consequence of their proficiency levels in the L2. It is
possible that their L2 proficiency levels were below the threshold mark, and therefore
could not facilitate the transfer of L1 RCSs to L2 reading; this interpretation of the
findings is in line with the LTH.
Further support for the LTH was provided in Schoonen et al. (1998), which
explored the contributions of vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive knowledge to
L1 and foreign language (FL) reading comprehension of 685 grades 6, 8 and 10 Dutch
L1 students enrolled in 1st, 3rd, and 5th year EFL instruction classes, respectively.
Participants’ reading comprehension in Dutch and English was measured with
multiple-choice testing materials developed by the Dutch National Institute for
Educational Measurement and the International Educational Assessment (IEA)
Reading Literacy Study (Elley, 1992). Vocabulary knowledge in Dutch was measured
with a multiple-choice test, while English vocabulary knowledge was measured with
a translation test. The two tests were developed by De Glopper et al. (1997). A
questionnaire developed by the authors was used to measure metacognitive
knowledge in all the 3 grades, irrespective of the language. The study found a
substantial impact of metacognitive knowledge on L1 RC at grades 8 and 10, while
little impact was found at grade 6. However, findings suggested that metacognitive
knowledge contributes to EFL RC especially at grade 10, where the importance of
metacognitive knowledge to EFL RC increased, while the importance of vocabulary
knowledge decreased. Whereas the influence of vocabulary knowledge on L1 and
EFL RC differed, no difference was found between the influence of metacognitive
knowledge on L1 and EFL RC at grade 10. Therefore at grade 10, the variance in L1
20
and EFL RC is not attributable to vocabulary knowledge, rather it is related to
metacognitive knowledge. This finding was interpreted as congruent with the LTH
since it indicated that advanced readers transfer their metacognitive knowledge while
performing reading tasks in the L2.
Unfortunately, the review above indicates that adolescents who often were
beginner EFL readers, but with well developed text processing ability in L1 reading
were used to conduct most of the studies. These studies therefore tended to focus on
participants whose dominant language is their L1, and as a result provided no
information on how reading processing could progress in contexts where readers’
dominant language is the L2, and reading proficiency was developed first in the L2.
To address the question about how cognitive and metacognitive processes operate in
L1 and L2 reading for readers with poorly developed L1 text processing ability, the
current study investigates the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on
RC performance of adult readers when processing texts in a native local language in
which many have very limited literacy.
Another general point about the studies reviewed here is that they were mostly
conducted in EFL contexts, and not in ESL contexts, where English, not the L1 is the
dominant language. What many researchers seem not to note is the possibility that L1
reading in EFL contexts, could diverge from L1 reading in ESL contexts. The same
may hold for L2 reading too. So, it is probably logical to assume that L1 reading
skills, believed to be transferable under the LIH, can only be transferred where it
exists, which is most probably in EFL contexts where L1 reading is most likely to be
well developed. However, in an ESL context like Nigeria, where many have little or
no proficiency reading in their L1, it could be that no such transfer occurs, given that
in most cases reading starts with the L2 not L1, and proceeds in the L2 all through the
21
educational life of the child. Therefore, reading proficiency is hardly attained in the
L1 by most natives. In this case, if transfers do occur, it may likely be the L2 skill
transferring to the L1, and not the other way round.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L2 reading
1.6.
research
Whereas most studies (e.g. those in 1.5) involving L1 reading strategy use are not
interested in how strategies used in L1 reading relate to L1 RC, several studies that
investigated reading strategy use in exclusively L2 reading context reported how the
use of reading strategies relates to RC in the L2. In fact, the effect of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use on L2 RC has specifically been reported in many studies
(e.g. Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2008). L2 readers who make effective use of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies during cognitively demanding reading
conditions have generally been considered good or successful readers.
Although few studies like Guo & Roehrig (2011) found no significant effect
for cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L2 RC, many L2 studies have
indicated that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use has a significant effect on
reading performance (e.g. Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001; Yau, 2009). For example, Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001) examined the differences
in the reported use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies among native and nonnative English-speaking college students using the Survey of Reading Strategies
(SORS) questionnaire. Participants were students of two universities in the US
enrolled in ESL composition courses. In addition to filling in the strategy
questionnaire, participants reported their overall TOEFL score, and self-rated their
reading ability in English. The results indicated that the L1 and ESL readers were
22
only significantly different in their reported use of support reading strategies.
Otherwise they showed no significant difference in their reported use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies. The study also found an effect of reading ability on reading
strategy use: L1 and ESL readers with high reading ability reported higher usage
levels for cognitive and metacognitive strategies than L1 and ESL lower-readingability readers, respectively. Finally, while L1 readers with high reading ability
consider support reading strategies as relatively more valuable than L1 readers with
low reading ability, ESL readers in the study, irrespective of their reading ability,
attributed high value to support reading strategies.
The validity of Sheorey and Mokhtari’s (2001) findings can be brought into
question because this study did not measure the direct effect of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use on RC. Many subsequent studies, however, examined the
effect of strategy use on L2 RC. Phakiti (2003a) investigated how cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use relates to EFL reading achievement test performance using
a strategy questionnaire and retrospective interviews. 384 Thai students enrolled in a
university in Thailand participated in the study in which data was collected during the
participants’ final examination in an English course in which reading comprehension
skills were taught. Participants read a total of eight passages with gap-filling cloze
questions. All participants answered the strategy questionnaire, while four highly
successful and four unsuccessful participants participated in the retrospective
interviews. Results indicated that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use was
significantly positively related with participants’ performance at the reading test. The
study also suggested that metacognitive strategy use distinguished highly successful
readers from moderately successful ones, and moderately successful readers from
unsuccessful ones. Highly successful readers reported significantly more use of
23
metacognitive strategies than the moderately successful readers, while the moderately
successful readers reported significantly more use of metacognitive strategies than the
unsuccessful readers.
In another study, Guo and Roehrig (2011) examined the roles of
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, syntactic awareness in English, and
English vocabulary knowledge in the English RC of 278 Chinese undergraduate
students enrolled as English education majors at three universities in China. Reading
comprehension was measured with two tests, the TOEFL Reading Comprehension
Subset (TOEFL-RBC) and the Gray Silent Reading Tests (3rd edition) (Wiederholt &
Blalock, 2000). L2 vocabulary knowledge (breadth and depth) was measured with
two tests, Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 1990) and Depth of Vocabulary
Knowledge Measure (DVK) (Qian & Schedl, 2004), while L2 syntactic awareness
was also measured with two tests, the Sentence Combination Subset of the Test of
Adolescent and Adult Language (4th edition) (Hammill et al., 2007) and the Syntactic
Awareness Questionnaire (Layton et al., 1998). Metacognitive awareness too was
measured with two instruments, Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire
(MRSQ) (Taraban et al., 2004) and Metacognitive Reading Awareness Inventory
(MRAI) (Miholic, 1994). The results indicated that although L2 language knowledge
and metacognitive awareness of reading strategies both correlated highly with RC in
the study, only L2 language knowledge explained significant variance in the RC
performance of the readers in the structural model predicting L2 reading. The authors
concluded that the Chinese subjects in the study could not transfer their awareness of
L1 reading strategies into reading in English because their proficiency levels in
English did not meet the ‘threshold’ that could enable such transfer.
24
Guo and Roehrig’s (2011) study was one of the few that found no significant
effect of strategy use on RC, which the authors claimed was due to the low L2
proficiency of the readers. In L2 reading research, proficient L2 readers have often
been associated with higher reported use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, as
shown in Nergis (2013). Nergis (2013) investigated whether depth of vocabulary
knowledge, syntactic awareness or metacognitive awareness could better predict
academic reading comprehension among 45 undergraduate students of a university in
Turkey enrolled in an English language teaching programme. Reading comprehension
was measured with TOEFL-RBC 2000, DVK with measures originally developed by
Read (1998), and syntactic awareness with a Sentence Combination Subset of the Test
of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL-4) (Hammill et al., 2007). The
metacognitive reading strategies awareness was measured with a Likert scale
questionnaire developed by Taraban et al. (2004). The study found that metacognitive
reading strategies awareness was the strongest predictor of academic RC well above
DVK and syntactic awareness (see van Gelderen et al., 2004 for a similar result). The
finding was explained as supporting the claim that highly proficient L2 learners rely
more on their metacognitive awareness skills when tackling tasks in the L2, which
previous studies (e.g. Phakiti 2003a, 2003b; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001) have also
indicated. Therefore it is probable that participants’ level of L2 proficiency was
responsible for why Guo & Roehrig (2011) found no effect for RC performance.
Findings in Yau (2009) study also point to this conclusion.
Yau (2009) investigated the knowledge and application of strategic reading in
the Taiwanese EFL context. Participants were 144 Taiwanese Grade 11 students.
Participants answered multiple-choice comprehension questions on six passages in
two separate sessions: two written in contemporary Chinese, two in classic Chinese,
25
and the other two in contemporary English. Participants’ knowledge and application
of reading strategies was measured via two reading strategy questionnaires, one for
reading L1 Chinese and the other for reading L2 English. Qualitative data was elicited
with a combination of semi-structured interviews and think-aloud protocols with two
higher and two lower performing EFL readers. Results from the quantitative data
indicated a substantial link between perceived use of first and second language
reading strategies. The study found high correlation between metacognitive strategy
use in L1 and L2, as well as for cognitive and support strategies respectively. No
statistically significant difference was found between L1 and L2 reading strategy use.
Readers reported more frequent use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies during
L1 reading than during L2 reading, whereas more frequent use of support strategies
was reported for L2 reading. L2 RC performance in general correlated positively with
self-reported use of reading strategies. However, while reported cognitive and support
strategy use were significantly correlated with RC performance in the L2, the study
found no significant correlation between reported metacognitive strategy use and RC
performance in the L2, although the two correlated positively. The strategic
processing of English texts, for this group of participants, was found to be similar
with strategic processing of texts written in classical Chinese. The similarity in
processing strategies used to read English and Chinese texts was interpreted to
support the reading universals hypothesis (Goodman, 1970). On the other hand, the
fact that this group of readers reported using more cognitive and metacognitive
strategies in L1 than in L2 reading, as well as the non significant correlation between
their metacognitive strategy use and L2 RC, could also be seen as supporting the
claims that transfer of L1 skills is contingent on L2 proficiency. Also is the fact that
the use of metacognitive strategies during L2 reading has been associated with highly
26
skilled or proficient L2 readers. The grade level of the participants in this study
suggests low levels of proficiency as EFL readers, which could explain why
metacognitive strategy use did not correlate significantly with reading performance in
the study.
Strategy instruction research in L2 reading
1.7.
Probably the greatest indication of the benefits of strategy use for RC, particularly of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies, has come from research on the effect of
strategy instruction on the use of reading strategies in L2 reading. Motivated by L2
RC research findings suggesting a positive effect for strategy use developed through
instruction, researchers began to encourage strategy instruction in schools. In fact, a
number of L2 researchers have studied the benefits of cognitive and metacognitive
instruction on RC performance of L2 learners (Akkakoson, 2013; Dabarera,
Renandya, Zhang, 2014; Lubliner and Smetana, 2005; Salataci and Akyel, 2002) with
some interesting results.
Salataci and Akyel (2002) investigated the effect of strategy instruction in
improving the use of RSs in L1 and L2 reading, and how the use of the RSs learnt
through instruction affects the RC of Turkish EFL students in L1 and L2 RC
performance. Eight Turkish students enrolled in an intermediate course in English in a
Turkish university were the participants. Participants received 4 weeks instruction on
reading strategy use. They read two versions of the reading components of the
Preliminary English Test (PET), one version before the strategy instruction and
another after the instruction. Data was collected using think-aloud protocols,
observations, semi-structured interviews and a background questionnaire. The
students’ L1 and L2 reading strategies improved and their RC scores on the PET
27
increased after the RS instruction. However, this study was silent on the mediating
effect of language proficiency, which has been found to play a role in strategy use.
In a quasi-experimental study involving two groups of Thai university
students, Akkakoson (2013) investigated the relationship between strategy
instructions, learning of L2 RS use and English reading achievement. Employing a
pre-test/post-test design, the experimental group was taught how to read general
English texts using a strategies-based approach for 16 weeks, while the control group
was also taught how to read general English in the same period using a traditional
method. Participants were asked to weekly document, as out-of-class assignments,
account of how they used the strategies taught to read English texts selected by the
participants on their own, and their reflections on the strategies used while reading the
texts. Data from these entries were used for the analyses. The study found that while
the RC scores of the control group did not improve during the course of the study, the
RC scores of the experimental group showed a significant improvement after the
strategy instruction. The study also found that the explicit strategy instruction given to
the experimental group resulted in the readers’ ‘greater metacognitive awareness of
the need to be strategic and monitor comprehension’ (p. 442) leading to improved
reading achievement.
Dabarera, Renandya, and Zhang (2014) also found in their study with
Singaporean students that metacognitive strategy awareness and use was improved
through instruction, which in turn led to increase in RC scores of the ESL students.
The study found a positive correlation between metacognitive awareness and use and
increase in reading scores of the Singaporean students.
Metacognitive strategy instruction has also been shown to be beneficial even
in the acquisition of vocabulary. Lubliner and Smetana (2005) investigated the
28
effectiveness of a metacognitive strategy instruction program tagged Comprehensive
Vocabulary Development (CVD), in increasing the reading comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition of fifth-grade students in a suburban low performing title 1
school in California. The study found that metacognitive instruction led to a
significant gain in vocabulary and RC for a group of low performing school children.
Studies reviewed so far point to the fact that the use of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies relates to performance in RC.
Some of the studies reviewed in this chapter have indicated that the use of
these strategies could be contingent on some factors. One factor prominent in the
review is language proficiency. Although some of the studies reviewed provide
support for the role of proficiency in cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L2
reading performance, some studies found no support for such effect (e.g. Brantmeier,
2000; Sarig, 1987; Yamashita, 2002). Yamashita (2002) concluded that difference in
language of the reading task, or the reader’s ability in those languages, does not affect
the use of metacognitive strategies. However, to some researchers, particularly those
whose studies were guided by the LTH, proficiency is salient in readers’ strategic
abilities (Bernhardt, 2000). Hence, for studies that found no relationship between
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and L2 reading performance, the L2
proficiency level of the participants tends to be blamed often (e.g. Guo & Roehrig,
2011; Sarig, 1987; Yau, 2009). Unfortunately, L2 proficiency levels were never
explicitly measured in many of these. The current study therefore addresses this issue
by measuring participants’ L2 proficiency levels via a standardized proficiency test.
29
Strategy elicitation and assessment
1.8.
In the field of reading strategy research, various methods have been adopted to elicit
readers’ strategy use. They include the use of survey tools (written questionnaires),
think-aloud protocols or verbal reports, diaries or dialogue journals, observation etc.
(Gao, 2004). Among these various tools, questionnaire emerges as one of the most
widely used in strategy research (Gao, 2004). The popularity of questionnaire stems
from the idea that they are ‘cost-effective and allow both researchers and participants
to gain a rapid understanding of the participants’ strategy use’ (Oxford and BurryStock, 1995, cited in Gao, 2004: 4). Questionnaire data are easy to analyze, and they
provide for the use of large sample size in research, which often constitutes a basic
condition for running many statistical analyses.
Notwithstanding its advantages as data-elicitation tool in strategy research, the
use of questionnaires to elicit data has recently come under criticisms. Some of these
criticisms relate to the diverse strategy inventories provided in questionnaires that
makes it difficult to find a strategy inventory that can precisely capture learners’
strategy use (Hsiao and Oxford, 2002). Critics of questionnaire (e.g. Gu, Wen and
Wu, 1995) also argue that sometimes the wordings of items in questionnaires create
ambiguity, which makes them susceptible to different interpretation that could bias or
alter findings in studies. Even where the wording of the items is clearly unambiguous,
critics have also alluded to the possibility of social desirability bias in the responses
provided by participants on questionnaire items. Also, the fact that questionnaires are
not able to capture the multidimensional nature of the strategies that readers use has
made critics to question their validity.
30
In recent times therefore, elicitation of data in strategy research has tended to
be in favour of the other data elicitation tools, particularly the concurrent verbal
protocol (think-aloud) or retrospective verbal protocol. However, while retrospective
verbal protocol is also limited by the fact that it is ‘difficult to determine whether data
gathered in this way truly reflect what participants were thinking during task
completion or new thoughts that occur to them while completing the protocol’ (Sanz
et al., 2009: 34). The concurrent verbal protocol, which is thought to have the
advantage of providing real time view into mental processes (Sanz et al., 2009), is
also plagued with reactivity and nonveridicality concerns (Bowles, 2010; Ellis, 2001;
Jourdenais, 2001). Reactivity refers to situation in which verbalization affects the
outcome of a cognitive process (Sanz et al., 2009), by acting as an additional task to
the participants in the process, thereby altering the cognitive process resulting in the
provision of an inaccurate representation (nonveridicality) of the cognitive process
(Ellis, 2001; Jourdenais, 2001). Within the nonveridicality concern, Sanz et al. (2009:
34) observed that ‘participants who are thinking aloud while completing a task may
provide an incomplete representation of their cognitive processes; however, lack of
verbalization of processes cannot be interpreted as absence of process’. This suggests
that think-aloud may not be appropriate for data collection in all situations,
particularly in cases like the current study, where participants, during the piloting of
the study, were completely unable to concurrently or retrospectively verbalize their
thought processes.
The act of thinking aloud while doing reading tasks was very novel to the
participants. As a consequence, they found it almost impossible to concurrently
verbalize their thought processes. Even the retrospective verbal protocol, which the
researcher opted to use as an alternative to the concurrent verbal protocol when the
31
participants could not concurrently verbalize their thought, was also plagued with the
production of intangible protocols that mostly did not yield data required for any
meaningful analysis. The researcher was therefore left with no option but to ditch
these methods out of concern that employing any of them to elicit data during the
main study could indicate that the veridicality of data obtained in this circumstance
would obviously be threatened from the onset, as the pilot study results revealed.
However, because the study was designed to assess the relationship between reading
strategy use and performance in reading comprehension tasks in an induced testing
situation, it could not support the use of diaries or observation as data elicitation tools.
It was therefore decided that questionnaire remains the most viable tool for data
collection in this circumstance.
1.9.
Overview of the thesis
This thesis aims to examine the extent to which the use of a set of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies relates to RC in L1 and L2 reading, as well as whether L2
proficiency and vocabulary size could relate to the use of cognitive and metacognitive
processes during L2 reading. Research conducted mostly in EFL contexts has
suggested that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use tends to correlate positively
and significantly with RC performance in L1 and L2. However, while some
researchers argue that readers use these strategies in the same way across L1 and L2,
others claim that varied proficiency levels entail varied usage levels for cognitive and
metacognitive strategies. Moreover, how the knowledge of vocabularies could affect
the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in L2 text processing, particularly in
ESL contexts where English is a lingua franca has not yet been explored. This thesis
therefore investigated, with groups of Igbo native speakers who are ESL readers in
32
Nigeria, the effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on L1 and L2 RC, and
the role of L2 language proficiency and vocabulary size in cognitive and
metacognitive reading strategy use. The structure of the thesis is therefore as follows.
CHAPTER 2 investigates the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use in the RC of Igbo native speakers when they process texts written in Igbo under
an induced testing condition. Previous L1 and L2 reading studies conducted mostly in
EFL reading contexts have suggested that whether the reading texts are in the L1 or
L2, the reader’s ability in those languages does not affect the use of metacognitive
strategies (Davis & Bistodeau, 1993; Yamashita, 2002). But, whether or not in the
ESL context in Nigeria, where English is a lingua franca and reading in the L1 is not
popular, the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies could be affected by
reader’s ability in Igbo, or the fact that the reading task is in Igbo, needs to be
explored. It is therefore being hypothesized that these Igbo L1 readers, who may not
be considered adept readers in their first language, will use cognitive and
metacognitive strategies to a positive and significant effect on their L1 RC
performance. In previous studies (e.g. Phakiti 2003a, 2003b; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001), quality and quantity of use were found to distinguish high achievers from low
achievers in RC tasks. It is therefore hypothesized that Igbo readers who perform well
in the reading test will use more cognitive and metacognitive strategies than those that
performed poorly in the test. The data from this study will further be analyzed in
CHAPTER 5 in comparison with data from the studies reported in CHAPTER 3 and
CHAPTER 4 to draw a coherent conclusion on the effect of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use on text processing in L1 and L2 in an ESL context.
In CHAPTER 3 the role of L2 proficiency and vocabulary size in cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use is investigated. As indicated in the review, there is yet
33
no consensus as to whether or not L2 proficiency relates to cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use during L2 text processing. Some researchers (e.g.
Bernhardt, 2000; Ghafournia & Afghari, 2013; Zhang & Wu, 2009) claim that L2
proficiency plays a role in cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, while others
claim that no such relationship exists (e.g. Brantmeier, 2000; Rahimi et al., 2009;
Yamashita, 2002). In the current study, it is hypothesized that L2 proficiency will
have a positive and significant relationship with cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use in L2 RC of the Igbo native speaker. This position runs contrary with the position
held by researchers (e.g. Rahimi et al. 2009; Stevenson et al., 2007; Yamashita, 2002)
that proficiency plays no role in the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
The contribution of vocabulary knowledge to cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use in L2 text processing constitutes part of the investigation in this chapter.
There is hardly any study that has explored this relationship. However, this possible
relationship is indicated by the fact that the most widely investigated reading strategy,
inferencing strategy, is a cognitive strategy that has been found to relate with
vocabulary knowledge (e.g. Oakhill et al., 2015). Given this relationship, a
relationship between vocabulary knowledge and cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use in L2 text processing also seems possible. It is therefore hypothesized that
vocabulary knowledge will have a positive and significant relationship with cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use in L2 text processing.
CHAPTER 4 reports on a study, which examines the effect of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use in L2 text processing of the Igbo native speakers. The
study will be guided by the same hypotheses stated for the study on L1 reading
reported in CHAPTER 2. Further analysis will be conducted in CHAPTER 5 to
establish if cognitive and metacognitive strategy use differed between two L2 text-
34
processing conditions, i.e. the study on the role of vocabulary and proficiency in
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during L2 text processing (Chapter 3) and
the study on the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on L2 text
processing (Chapter 4). The aim is to test whether the L2 reader’s cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use varied in relation to performance at the reading tasks
situations. If cognitive and metacognitive strategy use is found to vary in relation to
performance between two different L2 reading tasks situations, we hope to interpret it
as support for the claim that these variables are vital in RC. It will also be considered
an indication that the social desirability concern about the use of questionnaire to
elicit data in the study may not be warranted, since data elicited would have been
found to be a near perfect reflection of the L2 readers processing strategies during the
reading tasks. CHAPTER 5 also examines some limitations of the study, the
implications of the study for teachers, and some possible focus for future research.
35
1.10.
References
Adamson, H. D. (1990). ESL students' use of academic skills in content courses.
English for Specific Purposes , 9, 67-87.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between
reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher , 61 (5), 364-373.
Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student
learning of L2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal
of Research in Reading , 36 (4), 422-450.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 2: Test Pack. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 strategy research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
Research in Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 757-772). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson
(Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York:
Longman.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2000). Second language reading as a case study of reading
scholarship in the twentieth century. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, D. Pearson,
& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III, pp. 793-811).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bernhardt, E., & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2
reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic
interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics , 16 (1), 15-34.
36
Bimmel, P. E., van den Bergh, H., & Oostdam, R. J. (2001). Effects of strategy
training on reading comprehension in first and foreign language. European
Journal of Psychology of Education , 16 (4), 509-529.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2
readers. TESOL Quarterly , 26 (2), 319-343.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL
Quarterly , 20 (3), 463-494.
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research.
New York: Routledge.
Brantmeier, C. (2000). The relationship between readers' gender, passage content,
comprehension and strategy use in reading spanish as a second language.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University at Bloomington, IN.
Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connection between first and second language reading. Journal
of literacy research , 27 (4), 565-584.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, S. (1982). Inducing strategies learning from texts by
means of informed self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning
Disabilities , 2, 1-17.
Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983). Learning, remembering,
and understanding. In J. Flavell, & M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael's manual
of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.
Carrel, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. TESOL
Quarterly , 73, 121-134.
Chou, M.-h. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific
academic purposes in testing and nontesting contexts. Reading Research
Quarterly , 48 (2), 175-197.
37
Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In Mackey, Barkman,
& Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a Second Language. Rowley: Newbury House.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London:
Longman.
Cohen, A. (1986). Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent
findings. English for Specific Purposes , 5 (2), 131-145.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/Academic language proficiency, linguistic
interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working
Papers on Bilingualism , 19, 197-202.
Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis
of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on
Bilingualism , 9, 1-43.
Cziko, G. A. (1980). Language competence and reading strategies: A comparison of
first- and second-language oral reading errors. Language Learning , 30, 101114.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive
scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System , 42, 462-473.
Davis, J. N., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence
from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal , 77 (4), 459-472.
De Glopper, K., Van Daalen-Kapteijns, M. M., & Schouten-van Parreren, C. (1997).
Vocabulary knowledge and skill in inferring word meaning from context (SCO
Report 462). Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Institute, University of
Amsterdam.
Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., et
al. (2015). Text-processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor
38
comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational
text. Reading Research Quarterly , 50 (4), 393-416.
Devine, J. (1987). General, language competence and adult second language reading.
Research in reading in English as a second language , pp. 73-86.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, I. G., Book, C., & Putnam, J. e.
(1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading
skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading
teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly , 21 (3), 237-252.
Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? Hamburg, Germany:
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning , 51
(Suppl. 1), 1-46.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist , 34 (10), 906-911.
Gao, X. (2004). A critical review of questionnaire use in learner strategy research.
Prospect , 19 (3), 3-14.
Ghafournia, N., & Afghari, A. (2013). Relationship between reading proficiency,
strategic competence, and reading comprehension test performance: A study
of Iranian EFL learners. International Educational Studies , 6 (8), 21-30.
Goodman, K. (1970). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. Journal of
Typographic Research , 4, 103-110.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh, & I. G. Mattingly
(Eds.), Language by ear and by eye: The relationships between speech and
reading (pp. 331-358). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Graham, S. (1997). Effective language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
39
Gu, Y., Wen, Q., & Wu, D. (1995). How often is often? Reference ambiguities of the
Likert-scale in language learning strategy research. Occasional Papers in
English Language Teaching , 5, 19-35.
Guo, Y., & Roehrig, A. D. (2011). Roles of general versus second language (L2)
knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Lnaguage , 23
(1), 42-64.
Hammill, D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., & Wiederholt, J. L. (2007). Test of
adolescent and adult language (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies:
A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal , 86 (3), 368-383.
Jourdenais, R. (2001). Cognition, instruction and protocol analysis, In P. Robinson
(Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction , pp. 354-375.
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition , 16 (4), 441-461.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of L1
orthographic structures on L2 phonological recoding strategies. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition , 12 (4), 393-410.
Layton, A., Robinson, J., & Lawson, M. (1998). The relationship between syntactic
awareness and and reading performance. Journal of Research in Reading , 21
(1), 5-23.
Lee, J. (2015). Language learner strategy by Chinese-speaking EFL readers when
comprehending familiar and unfamiliar texts . Reading in a Foreign Language
, 27 (1), 71-95.
40
Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effect of comprehensive vocabulary
instruction on Title 1 students' metacognitive word-learning skills and reading
comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research , 37 (2), 163-200.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising
the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal , 90 (3), 320-337.
Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M. (2012). Reading strategies versus reading skills:
Two faces of the same coin. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 46,
817-821.
McNeil, L. (2011). Investigating the contributions of background knowledge and
reading comprehension strategies to L2 reading comprehension: An
explanatory study. Read Writ , 24 (8), 883-902.
Miholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students' metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies. Journal of Reading , 38 (2), 84-86.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing readers' metacognitive awareness
of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 94 (2), 249-259.
Nation, I. S. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP
learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12 (1), 1-9.
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & McCarthy, D. (2015). Inference processing in children: The
contributions of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. In E. J. O'Brien,
A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch, Jr. (Eds.), Inferences During Reading (pp. 140159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. (1985a).
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students.
Language learning , 35 (1), 21-46.
41
O'Malley, M. J., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow,
UK: Pearson Education.
Oxford, R., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for
language learning (SILL). System , 23 (1), 1-23.
Parry, K. (1996). Culture, literacy and L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly , 30 (4), 665692.
Phakiti, A. (2003b). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language
Learning , 53 (4), 649-702.
Phakiti, A. (2003a). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing ,
20 (1), 26-56.
Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer's (1996) strategic
competence model over time in EFL reading test. Language Testing , 25 (2),
237-272.
Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their
relationship to EFL reading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language
Testing , 1, 53-95.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A
structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.
Qian, D. D., & Schedl, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge
measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing , 21 (1), 28-52.
Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). Metacognitive strategies awareness and success in
learning English as a foreign language: An overview. Pocedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences , 31, 73-81.
Rahimi, M., Sadighi, F., & Dastkhezr, Z. A. (2009). Do L2 proficiency and L1
reading strategies affect persian EFL learners' use of English reading
strategies? Threshold hypothesis revisited. The Journal of Asia TEFL , 6 (3),
177-200.
Read, J. (1998). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In A.
Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in Language Assessment (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2
reading. Reading in a Foreign Language , 14 (1), 1-15.
Sanz, C., Lin, H., Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., & Stafford, C. A. (2009). Concurrent
verbalizations, pedagogical conditions, and reactivity: Two call studies.
Language Learning , 59 (1), 33-71.
Sarig. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some
comparative process data. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrel, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.),
Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 105-120).
Washington: TESOL.
43
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific
knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An
empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8, and 10. Language
Learning , 48 (1), 71-106.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System , 29 (4), 431449.
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & De Glopper, K. (2007). Inhibition or compensation?
A multidimensional comparison of reading process in Dutch and English.
Language learning , 57 ((Suppl. 1)), 115-154.
Taraban, R., Kerr, M., & Rynearson, K. (2004). Analytic and pragmatic factors in
college students' metacognitive reading strategies. Reading Psychology , 25
(2), 67-81.
Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students' use of reading strategies in L1 and
ESL contexts: Links to success. International Education Journal , 5 (4), 562570.
Trabasso, T., Suh, S., Payton, P., & Jain, R. (1995). Explanatory inferences and other
strategies during comprehension and their effect on recall. In R. F. Lorch, &
E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of Coherence in Reading (pp. 219-239). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second
language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 23 (4), 469-495.
Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and
practice. London: Longman.
44
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijin, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P.,
et al. (2004). Lingguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive
knowledge in first and second language reading comprehension: A
componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 (1), 19-30.
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R., Glopper, K., & Hulstijin, J. (2007).
Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and
language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of
Educational Psychology , 99 (3), 477-491.
Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition
and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition
and learning , 1 (1), 3-14.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Blalock, G. (2000). Gray Silent Reading Tests (3rd ed.). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Yamashita, J. (2002). Reading strategies in L1 and L2: Comparison of four groups of
readers with different reading ability in L1 and L2. ITL. Institut voor
Togepaste Linguistik , 135-36, 1-35.
Yau, J.-l. C. (2009). Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents:
Knowledge and application of strategic reading. Metacognition and Learning ,
4 (3), 217-235.
Young, D. J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to
process written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied
language learning , 8, 43-73.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students'
metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign
Language , 21 (1), 37-59.
Chapter 2
2.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during reading by
native speakers of Igbo
Abstract
According to most studies on reading comprehension, reading strategies may improve
reading comprehension, leading researchers to advocate reading strategy instruction.
Igbo is one of the three major indigenous languages in which reading is taught in
Nigerian schools. However, the limited awareness among Igbo language teachers of
the significance of strategy use in reading has allowed reading to be continuously
taught indirectly through the traditional method of discussing the structure of
prescribed texts. As a way to raise awareness on reading strategies, this study
attempted to identify from a cluster of cognitive and metacognitive strategy items the
cognitive and metacognitive strategies that Igbo readers in the study reported to have
used to process Igbo text. The contribution of the use of those strategies to the reading
comprehension performance of the readers was investigated, and the cluster of
strategies (cognitive or metacognitive) that readers reported using more frequently to
process Igbo texts was determined. Twenty-five Igbo students in a Federal College of
Education in Nigeria participated in the study. The participants did reading
comprehension tasks in Igbo, and completed a reading strategies questionnaire after
reading each passage. In their questionnaire answers, participants reported a medium
usage level for ten out of the fourteen reading strategies shortlisted for the
investigation. Regression analysis suggests that their reading comprehension strategy
45
46
use had a significant positive effect on the students’ reading scores, explaining 28.6%
of the variance. However, there was no significant difference in the participants’
reported use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies during the reading task.
Introduction
2.1.
The belief that the reading comprehension strategies (RCSs) employed during reading
comprehension, whether in the first language (L1) or the second (L2), affect reading
comprehension has gained traction among reading researchers. Numerous studies on
the effect of RCSs on reading comprehension (e.g. Block, 1992; Schoonen et al.,
1998; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001) suggest that the strategies readers employ during
reading account for a large portion of the variance in reading comprehension scores.
Moreover, high proficiency readers typically use an array of RCSs when they engage
in reading, which tends to set them apart from low proficiency readers (Phakiti, 2003;
Yau, 2009).
The degree to which RCSs are used effectively during reading has also been
claimed to affect reading comprehension (Baker & Beall, 2009; Baker & Brown,
1984). In particular, studies suggest that skilled readers are often those who regulate
their use of cognitive strategies (acts employed to manipulate the material to be
learned or the act of applying specific techniques to a learning task), and
metacognitive strategies (acts employed to oversee, direct and regulate the learning
process) during reading (see Nergis, 2013; Rahimi & Katal, 2012; Sheorey &
Mokhtari, 2001). Pedagogical studies indicating strategy instruction helps to
significantly improve readers’ performance in reading comprehension tasks (e.g.
Akkakoson, 2013; Dabarera, Renandya, & Zhang, 2014; Lubliner & Smetana, 2005;
47
Salataci & Akyel, 2002) also suggest that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use is
beneficial to reading comprehension.
Reading in Igbo tends to be unpopular and unattractive to many Igbo native
speakers, as experience with literacy among this group does not often commence in
the L1. This seemingly ‘subtractive bilingual’ reading situation (where L1 reading
competence is diminishing in favour of L2 reading competence) (Cummins, 1976) is
attributable to the unique sociolinguistic environment in which Nigerian indigenous
languages struggle to survive due to the overbearing influence of English on the life
of natives as a Language of Wider Communication (LWC) (lingua franca) (see
Adedimeji, 2004). Moreover, the traditional indirect method of teaching reading by
discussing the structure of prescribed texts persists in classrooms. Although studies
conducted outside the sociocultural context of Igbo have indicated that cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use could have a significant positive effect on RC, nothing is
known about the cognitive and metacognitive processes that readers use to process
texts in Igbo, and the extent to which their use, as in previous studies, could relate to
performance in comprehending Igbo texts by Igbo natives who are not particularly
adept readers in Igbo. In fact, it would be interesting to examine if metacognitive
processing would be a significant contributor to performance in reading
comprehension in Igbo as has been reported in some previous L1 studies with
‘additive bilingual’ readers (competent L1 readers who are also gaining competence
in L2 reading) (Cummins, 1976) in EFL contexts (e.g. Tercanlioglu, 2004; Young &
Oxford, 1997). It has been suggested that different language backgrounds and varying
experiences with literacy could significantly influence reader’s use of strategies while
trying to construct meaning from written texts (Parry, 1996). In line with this
understanding it is therefore being assumed that since people from different cultures
48
adopt different strategies when tackling learning tasks, identifying and analyzing
strategies used by people within a cultural setting could potentially provide more
insight into the cognitive processes that underlie text processing, and may also
improve teaching in that culture (Oxford, 1990; Rahimi & Katal, 2012).
Cognitive and metacognitive strategies in reading
2.2.
comprehension
Within the framework of language learning, cognitive and metacognitive strategies
are considered essential learning tools. Cognitive strategies ‘aid the learner in putting
together, consolidating, elaborating, and transforming knowledge of the language and
culture’ (Oxford, 2011: 46), while metacognitive strategies enable the learner to
‘focus, plan, obtain resources, organize, coordinate, and evaluate the construction of
L2 knowledge’ (Oxford, 2011: 44).
In the context of reading comprehension, cognitive strategies are conceived as
reading strategies that ‘relate to the target language and world knowledge of the
learners, which allow them to construct meaning from text and to perform the given
task’ (Phakiti, 2003, 2008), while metacognitive strategies are seen to ‘relate to selfmanagement or self-regulation in a given reading activity’ (Phakiti, 2003: 651). They
have metaphorically been referred to as ‘construction workers’ and ‘construction
managers’ respectively (Oxford, 2011). In Phakiti’s studies, cognitive strategies
consisted of ‘making predictions, translating, summarizing, linking with prior
knowledge or experience, applying grammar rules and guessing meaning from
context’ (Phakiti, 2003: 651), while metacognitive strategies consist of planning and
monitoring strategies. Planning strategies involve previewing or overviewing of a task
49
to decide on a course of action, while monitoring strategies involve actions like
checking, monitoring and evaluating the reader’s thinking and reading performance.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L1 text processing has been
investigated in relation to L2 text processing by many researchers (e.g. Koda, 1990;
Sarig, 1987; Schoonen et al., 1998; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Stevenson et al.,
2007; Tercanlioglu, 2004; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; van Gelderen et al., 2007;
Young & Oxford, 1997). Many of these studies tested the Linguistic Interdependence
Hypothesis (LIH) (Cummins, 1979), which suggests a relationship of the L1 to the
learning of L2 based on the principle of Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP).
Since the underpinning principle of this hypothesis suggests the transferability or
otherwise of L1 linguistic skill to L2, and the role of language specific knowledge and
processing skills in the process, reading researchers have often explored L1 reading
processes in relation with L2 reading process to establish the veracity of the claim of a
relationship between L1 and L2 reading ability. Many of these studies (e.g. Bernhardt
& Kamil, 1995; Brisbois, 1995; Fecteau, 1999; Lee & Schallert, 1997) have indicated
a positive and significant relationship between L1 and L2 reading ability.
The relationship between L1 and L2 reading ability has also been tested in
studies that focused on cognitive and metacognitive reading comprehension
strategies. Some of such studies (e.g. Schoonen et al., 1998; Tercanlioglu, 2004; van
Gelderen et al., 2007) have provided evidence for the effect of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use in L1 and L2 text processing.
For example, Sarig (1987), Stevenson et al.’s (2007), Young and Oxford
(1997) study compared L1 and L2 Cognitive and metacognitive processes. Sarig
(1987) suggested that readers in the study used, in a very similar way, their high-level
processing skills, operationalized as identifying of main ideas and synthesizing of
50
overall message, when they read in both languages. Whereas Young and Oxford
(1997) reported that when reading texts, the participants employed higher-level
processing strategies (metacognitive strategies) to read L1 (English) texts, while they
used lower-level processing strategies (cognitive strategies) to read L2 (Spanish)
texts. However, in Stevenson et al.’s (2007) study, readers reported using a higher
proportion of cognitive and metacognitive strategies while reading in L2 than in the
L1. In order to also compare cognitive processes in L1 and L2 text processing, Koda
(1990) examined L1 orthographic influence on L2 text processing. The researcher
concluded that there is ‘L1 orthographic influence on cognitive strategies used in L2
reading’ (p. 404), based on the fact that reading speed among readers of L1
phonographic languages (Arabic, English, and Spanish) decreased significantly when
they read texts with Sanskrit symbols in the experimental condition, which was not
the case with readers of L1 morphographic language (Japanese). One feature of
studies that compared cognitive and metacognitive processes in L1 and L2 is that they
are often silent on the effect of these processes on reading comprehension
performance. This is particularly because reading comprehension is often not
measured in such studies.
On the other hand, other studies tested the effect of cognitive and
metacognitive processes in L1 and L2 text processing. Such studies are often the ones
that report the effect of L1 and L2 cognitive processing on reading comprehension
performance. Some of these studies (e.g. Schoonen et al., 1998; van Gelderen et al.,
2007) involved adolescents. Schoonen et al. (1998) found a substantial impact of
metacognitive knowledge on L1 reading comprehension at grades 8 and 10, while
little impact was found at grade 6. However in L2 reading, the study found that
metacognitive knowledge contributes to RC in the L2 especially at grade 10.
51
Therefore variance in L1 and L2 reading comprehension at grade 10 was attributed to
metacognitive knowledge. Similarly van Gelderen et al. (2007) found metacognitive
knowledge to be substantially related to reading comprehension performance of all
grade levels in L1 and L2 reading.
It is however important to observe that while the Dutch L1 readers in these
studies tended to have consistently used cognitive and metacognitive processing in
similar manner during L1 and L2 processing, a somewhat different trend was found
with readers in other studies conducted in different contexts. For example, earlier it
was noted that Young & Oxford (1997) reported that when reading texts, the
participants employed higher-level processing strategies (metacognitive strategies) to
read L1 (English) texts, while they used lower-level processing strategies (cognitive
strategies) to read L2 (Spanish) texts. Similarly, in a study by Tercanlioglu (2004) in
which the use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL contexts was investigated among
postgraduate non-native-English-speaking international students from different
countries and English speaking British students. The researcher found that there was a
clear preference for cognitive strategies followed by metacognitive and then support
strategies by the ESL and L1 readers. However, while the L1 readers reported higher
frequency usage for metacognitive strategies, the L2 readers reported higher
frequency usage for support strategies. Interestingly, the study found no difference in
the reading comprehension performance of the two groups that could be attributed to
the variation in their reading strategies as L1 or ESL reader.
Therefore, while Dutch readers in Schoonen et al. (1998) and van Gelderen et
al. (2007) reported the use of more cognitive and metacognitive strategies in
processing L1 texts, readers in Young & Oxford (1997) reported higher frequency
usage for metacognitive strategies in L1 and cognitive strategies for L2 text
52
processing. On the other hand, readers in Stevenson et al. (2007) reported higher
frequency of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L2 than in L1 text
processing, whereas readers in Tercanlioglu (2004) study reported using more
metacognitive strategies for L1, and support strategies for L2 text processing.
Meanwhile, the finding in Tercanlioglu’s study, which indicates that
irrespective of the divergence in strategy use in the two languages, reading
comprehension was not affected, is curious. This is because the finding tends to be in
contrast with the position in literature, particularly L2 reading literature where several
studies have tended to indicate that metacognitive strategies are good predictors of
reading comprehension. It is as a result of the perceived significant impact of these
strategies on reading comprehension performance that a number of L2 reading
researchers have explored the potential benefits of cognitive and metacognitive
strategy instruction for improved reading comprehension performance in L1 and L2
(e.g. Salataci & Akyel, 2002), in the acquisition of L2 vocabulary (e.g. Lubliner &
Smetana, 2005), and in L2 reading comprehension (e.g. Akkakoson, 2013; Dabarera,
Renandya, & Zhang, 2014). All these studies did not only find that strategy
instruction improved readers use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in L1 and
L2, their use were also found to significantly improve readers’ performance in reading
comprehension tasks or in the acquisition of L2 vocabulary.
The current study examines cognitive and metacognitive strategy use by
native speakers of Igbo during reading and their role in reading comprehension. The
reading strategies of adult L1 readers with late and limited L1 literacy experiences (as
the group in the current study) in an ESL context needs to be understood for the
benefit of teaching L1 in ESL contexts where there is strong dominance of English
(Oxford, 1990; Rahimi & Katal, 2012). Parry (1996) has suggested that different
53
language backgrounds and varying experiences with literacy could significantly
influence reader’s use of strategies while trying to construct meaning from written
texts. The studies reviewed (Schoonen et al., 1998; Stevenson et al., 2007;
Tercanlioglu, 2004; van Gelderen et al., 2007; Young & Oxford, 1997) have also
indicated that different contexts of reading could potentially affect the way cognitive
and metacognitive strategies are used in text processing. Given that studies with
adolescents (Schoonen et al., 1998; van Gelderen et al., 2007) have indicated that
even among beginner readers, students at higher-grade levels reported more frequent
use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, which had significant effect on their
reading comprehension performance. It is therefore hypothesized that in the current
study this group of Igbo L1 readers, who are not adept readers in their native
language, will report the use of more metacognitive strategies to process Igbo texts.
As previous studies (e.g. Baker & Beall, 2009; Baker & Brown, 1984; van Gelderen
et al., 2007) have indicated, it is also hypothesized that metacognitive strategy use
will have significant positive effect on the reading comprehension performance of
these readers well above the effect of cognitive strategy use. Hence the study reported
here addressed these research questions:
1: Which are the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used during Igbo
reading tasks by native speakers of Igbo enrolled in a teacher-training
programme in Nigeria?
2: What is the relative effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on
these participants’ reading comprehension?
3: Which cluster of strategies (cognitive or metacognitive) did readers report
using most frequently while processing Igbo texts?
54
Method
2.3.
2.3.1. Participants
The study was carried out in a Federal College of Education in Nigeria. The
participants in the study consist of 25 students, 4 males and 21 females, enrolled in
the College to be trained as teachers. Their ages spanned from 19 to 35 years. They
had been studying in the College for a period of one to three years. Participants were
informed of the study through their class teachers, who also helped to distribute the
consent forms to the students. The students completed the consent form a week before
the study, and only those that indicated willingness to participate in the study were
invited to participate. The choice of teacher trainees for the study was considered
adequate because there was no reason to assume that previous instruction could bias
their responses given that reading strategy instruction is not in their curriculum.
A language learning and use self-report questionnaire with a five-point Likert
scale was administered (see appendix A). The purpose was to ascertain participants’
background on L1 use to ensure that they could rightly be classified as Igbo L1
speakers. This questionnaire was also administered to establish that the participants
do not suffer from any impairment, which could affect the outcome of the study as
well as to measure their reading ability in Igbo. Self-report proficiency scales have
been shown by researchers to correlate very highly with objective measures of
language ability (see Maclntyre et al., 1997; Kroll et al., 2002, etc.), and have been
used in many studies (e.g. Dewaele et al., 2008; Colzato et al., 2008; Rai et al., 2011).
52% of the participants reported speaking Igbo exclusively at home. 37% reported
speaking a combination of Igbo and English, while 7% reported speaking Igbo,
55
English and Hausa at home. Only one participant reported speaking only English at
home.
While all the participants reported to have started learning reading in English
before the age of eight, only 30% of the participants stated this for Igbo. 62% of the
participants reported that they started learning to read in Igbo when they were already
between the ages of 10 and 20 years. Two participants did not answer when they
started learning to read in Igbo.
Regarding their Igbo reading ability, operationalized as the fluent decoding of
Igbo orthographic representations, 12% reported having low, 16% fairly low, 36%
fairly high, 24% high and 12% very high reading ability in Igbo. Comprehension
ability in Igbo, operationalized as the ability to form coherent metal representation of
Igbo written or spoken texts, was also reported to be low for 8%, fairly low for 20%,
fairly high for 20%, high for 40% and very high for 12% of the participants.
However, none of the participants reported being dyslexic nor did they report having
any hearing or visual impairment. All the participants voluntarily agreed to participate
in the study, and N1,000. A top-up voucher for Global System for Mobile
communication (GSM) was given to each participant as a token of appreciation for his
or her participation.
2.3.2. Measures
2.3.2.1.
Reading Comprehension measures
The reading comprehension was measured with three passages, each followed by five
multiple-choice questions. Participants read all the three passages, and answered all
the multiple-choice questions accompanying them. Passages from past West African
56
Examination Council (WAEC) tests, and the Joint Admissions and Matriculation
Board (JAMB) tests were adopted with some minor modifications. WAEC and JAMB
set qualifying standardized tests for students in Nigeria. The WAEC sets and
administers the Ordinary Levels (OL) tests that qualify students to seek admission
into any tertiary institution in Nigeria and all over the world, while the JAMB sets and
administers Nigerian university entrance examinations.
Additional multiple-choice questions were created for two of the original Igbo
comprehension passages to ensure that participants read texts with an equal number of
questions, each with three distractors (see appendix B). Recent developments in the
evaluation of reading comprehension require reading comprehension to be evaluated
with questions that would be sensitive to the mental representations that readers form
as they try to construct meaning from a text (see Magliano et al., 2007), local, global,
and inferential questions. Local questions were designed to test readers’ general
ability to locate explicit information in the text, either at the sentential or contextual
levels. Global questions tested readers’ ability to maintain coherence in order to grasp
meaning at the level of sentence, paragraph, or even the complete text. Inferential
questions tested readers’ ability to go beyond the text to use information from the text
and previous knowledge to provide explanations, draw analogies, or predict meaning
(Pascual & Goikoetxea, 2014). A total of five questions were created for each of the
three dimensions.
The word count for each of the RC passages in the study is 307 words for
passage 1, 336 words for passage 2, and 213 words for passage 3.
It has to be acknowledged that since different techniques for testing reading
might permit the evaluation of different composites of the reading construct, there is
no one best format for testing reading (Alderson, 2000). Multiple-choice tests were
57
used instead of other test formats (e.g., cloze, gap-fill, free-recall, and text
summarization tests) because of the popularity of the multiple-choice test format in
the examination system of Nigeria. Moreover, the procedure for analyzing multiplechoice tests items is well established (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996), it provides for
scorer reliability (Alptekin & Ercetin, 2011) and therefore makes their use even more
attractive. In fact, notwithstanding the controversy on the validity of the multiplechoice test for assessing reading comprehension (see Rupp, Ferne, & Choi, 2006), it is
believed that such tests have the benefit of limiting the possible answers to
comprehension questions and, consequently, leading to easy data analysis. The
availability of ‘statistical support for the analysis of multiple-choice tests, and
straightforward interpretation of test analysis result’ (Phakiti, 2003b: 659) constitutes
an attraction for the choice of the multiple-choice format of testing in the current
study.
2.3.2.2.
Reading strategy use measures
Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use was assessed with a RCSs questionnaire.
Researchers like Oxford (1996) and Purpura (1999) support the use of strategy
questionnaires in the investigation of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. Apart
from being cost effective, strategy questionnaires are believed to provide for
participants and researchers a quick understanding of the strategies used by
participants (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995). In a recent study by Phakiti (2003), only a
strategy questionnaire was used due to ethical concerns about asking participants to
report on their strategy use while taking the test, need to statistical compare learners’
reading strategies across groups, the challenge of tape-recording participants, the
desire to assess the overall degree of strategy use not the number of times readers
58
used a particular strategy. This was the strategy questionnaire adapted for the current
study. The decision to adapt Phakiti’s questionnaire was based on the fact that it was
designed to measure specific cognitive and metacognitive strategies associated with
reading comprehension in a testing context. Since the participants in the current study
were required to read texts in a testing condition, it was assumed that the
questionnaire was adequate for our study.
Phakiti’s (2003) questionnaire uses a 5-point Likert scale; it requires
participants to assess whether a strategy is used 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3(often), 4
(usually) and 5 (always). Phakiti’s (2003) questionnaire contains 35 items testing
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in reading. It was established by means of
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) that the items in the questionnaire clustered in two
factors, one of them related mainly to cognitive strategies, and the other mainly
related to metacognitive strategies. Based on this dichotomy, five strategy items in the
35-item questionnaire (e.g. ‘I translated the reading text and tasks into English to
enhance my understanding’, ‘I read the text and questions several times to better
understand them’) were shortlisted as items relating to cognitive strategy use, while
ten items (e.g. ‘I was aware of what and how I was doing in the test’, ‘I checked my
answers as I progressed in the test’, ‘I corrected mistakes immediately when found’)
were also shortlisted as relating to metacognitive strategy use in the study. In all, a
total of 15 items were shortlisted from the 35 items. These 15 items constituted the
strategy questionnaire used to conduct the current study. However, only 14 items
were used in the analysis. Item 33 (‘I determined how to solve the test’) was excluded
and hence did not appear in our strategy questionnaire because it did not seem to be
understandable to most participants. The procedure adopted to reach this decision is
59
presented in the next section. Apart from changing the word ‘Thai’ to ‘Igbo’ in item
2, no other change was made to the items.
Data collection procedure
2.4.
Data for the study was collected in two sessions over a period of two days. On day
one, participants individually completed the Participant’s Information Sheet and
Consent Form, and answered the language learning and use questionnaire. At the end
of the session in day one, a copy of the strategy questionnaire to be used on the
second day of data collection was presented to participants together in groups of 5.
They were asked to go through it and report any item that was not comprehensible to
them. Over 90% of them identified one particular item, ‘I determined how to solve the
test’, as generally incomprehensible. The item was therefore excluded from the
questionnaire that was used on the second day of data collection.
On day two of data collection, participants took the reading comprehension
test in Igbo, after which they answered the strategy questionnaire on the passages. The
reading comprehension test consisted of three passages, each followed by five
multiple-choice questions. Participants had to answer the strategy questionnaire
immediately after reading every passage and answering its multiple-choice questions.
In other words, participants answered the strategy questionnaire three times during the
data collection session to ensure that the questionnaire responses provided captured
the true strategic behaviour exhibited by the participant while reading a particular
passage. Participants were given the option of answering the English or Igbo versions
of the questionnaire. All opted to answer the English version. Participants took
between one hour and one hour and 15 minutes to fill in the test and questionnaire
sheets.
60
2.5.
Data analysis procedure
Data collected via the reading comprehension tests were converted into percentages of
correct answers per participant. The questionnaire data, which were elicited with
Likert scales, were analyzed based on the ordinal ratings in the Likert scales.
However, because the participants answered the strategy questionnaire three times for
the reading comprehension tests, the average ratings of the items in the questionnaire
were used for the analysis. Data elicited from all the 25 participants were used for the
analysis. All analyses were done with version 19 of the Statistical Programme for
Social Sciences (SPSS) (2010). To answer the first research question, a cut-off point
of .80 for equal intervals between the 5 levels in the Likert scale was set (see
Akkakoson, 2013 for a similar procedure). To answer to the second research question,
multiple regression analysis and one-way repeated measures ANOVA were used.
2.6.
Results
Research question 1 aims at determining the RCSs reported used substantially by
readers during the Igbo reading comprehension task. The mean rating of all the
strategy items by the participants was used for the analysis. Tables 1 and 2 present the
descriptive statistics of the students’ responses to the questionnaire items used for the
analysis. The statistics provided in Table 1 and 2 are based on the reported average
rating for each item on the questionnaire’s 5-point Likert scale. Despite the
controversy on the appropriateness of analyzing Likert scale data like interval data in
this manner (see Jamieson, 2004; Kuzon et al., 1996), this approach was adopted not
only because of its popularity in research, but also because it has been argued that
ordinal scales are reduced to interval data when they consist of sums across many
61
items (Carifio & Perla, 2008; Norman, 2010). Table 1 provides descriptive statistics
for the ratings of the cognitive strategy questionnaire items and Table 2 for those of
the metacognitive strategy items.
Table 1: Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for cognitive strategy
questionnaire items used in reading comprehension.
Cognitive item
1. I translated the reading text and tasks into English
to enhance my understanding.
2. I tried to understand the text and questions
regardless of my vocabulary knowledge.
3. I tried to find topics and main ideas of the passage
without reading it in detail.
4. I read the text and questions several times to better
understand them.
5. I used my prior knowledge to help understand the
text.
Mean
SD
Skewness Kurtosis
2.16
1.375
1.048
.009
3.00
1.291
.253
-1.257
2.24
1.128
.619
-.164
2.96
1.060
.313
-.698
2.64
.952
.192
-1.010
Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for metacognitive strategy
questionnaire items used in reading comprehension.
Metacognitive item
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
6. I was aware of what and how I was doing in the test.
3.20
1.258
-.273
-.780
7. I checked my answers as I progress in the test.
3.08
1.320
.078
-1.035
8. I corrected mistakes immediately when found.
2.60
1.472
.426
-1.164
9. I determined what the test questions require me to do.
2.68
1.215
.223
-.683
10. I was aware of the need to plan a course of action.
2.44
1.193
.634
-.125
3.36
1.186
-.451
-.540
2.71
1.367
.133
-1.375
2.96
.955
.088
-.371
11. I tried to understand the questions adequately before
attempting to answer.
12. I was aware of selected strategies to help me
complete the test questions before solving them.
13. I checked my accuracy as I progressed through the
test.
62
14. I identified relevant information in the text to help
me understand the text and answer the questions.
3.13
.992
.023
-.130
Therefore to determine the specific cognitive and metacognitive strategy items
reportedly used substantially by the participants during the Igbo reading task, a cut-off
point of .80 was set for equal intervals between the 5 levels in the Likert scale,
following Akkakoson (2013). This enabled the researcher to determine the items that
were highly scored by the students in both the cognitive strategies and metacognitive
strategies investigated. It was therefore decided that:
1. a mean score of 1.00 – 1.80 would indicate that the students never use a
particular strategy (the lowest level).
2. a mean score of 1.81 – 2.60 would indicate that the students sometimes use a
particular strategy (the low usage level).
3. a mean score of 2.61 – 3.40 would indicate that the students often use a
particular strategy (the medium-usage level).
4. a mean score of 3.41 – 4.20 would indicate that the students usually use a
particular strategy (the high-usage level).
5. a mean score of 4.21 – 5.00 would indicate that the students use a particular
strategy always whenever they read (the highest level).
Questionnaire items whose scores fall within levels 1 and 2 were not reported because
they were deemed to be of low usage, and therefore are of no significance in the
strategy repertoire of these readers during the reading task. Details of the analyses are
presented in Table 3. The results in Table 3 indicate that 10 out of the 14 strategy
items received a medium level of usage during the reading comprehension tests. The
63
distribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use items presented in Table 3
shows that this group of Igbo readers reported substantial use of cognitive strategy
items 2 (I tried to understand the text and questions regardless of my vocabulary
knowledge), 4 (I read the text and questions several times to better understand them),
and 5 (I used my prior knowledge to help understand the text), and metacognitive
strategy items 6 (I was aware of what and how I was doing in the test), 7 (I checked
my answers as I progressed in the test), 9 (I determined what the test questions require
me to do), 11 (I tried to understand the questions adequately before attempting to
answer), 12 (I was aware of selected strategies to help me complete the test questions
before solving them), 13 (I checked my accuracy as I progressed through the test),
and 14 (I identified relevant information in the text to help me understand the text and
answer the questions) during the Igbo reading comprehension task. In response to the
first research question, these strategy items could therefore be described as the
cognitive and metacognitive strategies that these readers used when they read in Igbo.
Strategy items 1 (I translated the reading text and tasks into English to enhance my
understanding), 3 (I tried to find topics and main ideas of the passage without reading
it in detail), 8 (I corrected mistakes immediately when found), and 10 (I was aware of
the need to plan a course of action) do not appear in Table 3 because they received
low ratings from participants.
Table 3: Distribution of highly scored cognitive and metacognitive strategy items
Cognitive item
Rating
Metacognitive item
Rating
2
Medium usage
6
Medium usage
4
Medium usage
7
Medium usage
5
Medium usage
9
Medium usage
11
Medium usage
64
12
Medium usage
13
Medium usage
14
Medium usage
Questionnaire results also indicate that no strategy item was reported for high level of
use. Therefore, in 81% of the time, medium usage level was reported for the cognitive
and metacognitive strategies used during the reading task.
Research question 2 examines the relative contributions of reported cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use to Igbo reading comprehension scores. To answer this
research question, multiple regression analyses were conducted to see if cognitive and
metacognitive strategies could account for a substantial amount of variance in Igbo
reading comprehension scores. In the regression model, the Igbo reading
comprehension score was the outcome variable, while participants’ average ratings
for the use of cognitive strategy and metacognitive strategy items during the reading
comprehension tasks were the predictor variables (see Table 4 for the descriptive
statistics of the reading scores, cognitive strategy and metacognitive strategy use).
Table 4: Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for the reading
comprehension scores, cognitive and metacognitive strategies used during reading
comprehension
Variable
Reading
comprehension
Cognitive
strategy
Metacognitive
strategy
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
55.36
27.720
-.073
-1.340
2.600
.58878
.320
-.308
2.888
.73729
.513
.217
65
Before conducting the multiple regression analyses, tests were conducted to examine
whether the assumptions of multiple regression analysis were met. The test for the
assumption of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (CS,
Tolerance = .959; MS, Tolerance = .959). The assumption of independent errors was
also met (Durbin-Watson = 2.212). The histogram of the standardized residuals
indicated that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors, as also
indicated by the normal P-P plot of standardized residuals, which showed points
located very close to the regression line. The scatterplot of the standardized residuals
also indicated that the assumption of homoscedasticity and linearity were met in the
data. Therefore, multiple regression analysis was conducted with the reported average
ratings for cognitive strategy and metacognitive strategy use as predictor variables
and reading comprehension scores as the dependent variable.
All predictors were entered in the multiple regression analysis simultaneously
(forced entry). Results indicate that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use explains
a significant amount of variance in the reading comprehension scores of the Igbo L1
readers (F (2, 22) = 4.42, p = .024, R2 = .286, R2 Adjusted = .22). 28.6% of the variance
associated with Igbo reading scores was jointly explained by the reported cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use, with metacognitive strategy use explaining 24.1% of
the variance.
Results further indicate that the reported cognitive strategy use did not
significantly predict RC performance (β = -.22, t (24) = -1.19, p = .25), whereas
metacognitive strategy use did (β = .54, t (24) = 2.91, p = .008). In particular,
according to the multiple regression analysis, one unit increase in metacognitive
strategy use was associated with .54 unit increase in RC scores in Igbo. We might
therefore conclude that for this group of Igbo native speakers, the use of
66
metacognitive strategies but not the cognitive strategies contributed significantly to
improving their reading comprehension performance in Igbo.
To gain a better insight into the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use on reading comprehension in Igbo, the effect of aggregation over participants (i.e.
analyzing data of distinct groups of participants as a single group), was controlled for
in the ANOVA analysis conducted to compare cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use between high and low performers on the reading comprehension task. According
to Phakiti (2003b: 672) aggregation over participants has ‘a potential to alter the
findings …’ in a study. Two groups of high and low performers on the reading
comprehension task were created using median split (see Table 4 for the descriptive
statistics of the reading comprehension scores). The participants that scored above
53% were grouped as high performers (HPs), whereas those with scores of 53% and
below were grouped as low performers (LPs). Therefore, the HPs group in Igbo
consists of 12 students, while the LPs group consists of 13 students. Table 5 presents
the descriptive statistics of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by high and
low performers in Igbo reading tasks. The Table indicates that data in all conditions
are normally distributed except for the low performers’ cognitive strategy use
(LPCSU) data, which are not normally distributed. Mauchly’s test indicated that the
assumption of sphericity has been met (X2 (2) = 2.81, p > .05).
Table 5: Mean, standard deviation, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test of normality
for cognitive and metacognitive strategy use by high and low performers in Igbo
reading tasks.
Variable
Mean
SD
K-S
Sig.
HPCSU
2.60
.52570
.193
.200*
67
LPCSU
2.48
.53570
.253
.033
HPMSU
3.22
.76376
.227
.087
LPMSU
2.54
.59154
.135
.200*
a. Lilliefors significance correction
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance
Note: HPCSU = High Performers’ Cognitive Strategy Use; LPCSU = Low
Performers’ Cognitive Use; HPMSU = High Performers’ Metacognitive Strategy
Use; LPMSU = Low Performers’ Metacognitive Strategy Use.
One-way repeated-measures ANOVA was chosen to conduct pairwise comparisons of
means for the groups’ reported cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in reading
comprehension using the least significant difference (LSD) procedure. Fisher’s LSD
procedure has been found to perfectly protect against inflated type 1 error rates when
not more than 3 means are compared (see Hayter, 1986 & Seaman et al., 1991 for
analytical and empirical explanations, respectively). On the average, they have also
been found to be at least 8% more powerful than most commonly used post hoc tests
like Tukey’s HSD test (Seaman et al., 1991). Although the LPCSU data are not
normally distributed, an ANOVA was conducted, as it is robust to the violation of this
assumption (see Field, 2013: 444-5 for a detailed discussion). Table 6 presents the
results of the pairwise comparisons in the one-way repeated-measures ANOVA
performed on cognitive and metacognitive strategies reported by high and low
performers in the reading tasks. The ANOVA result for cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use reported by high and low performers on the Igbo reading tasks indicates
that in general, there was a significant main effect for reported metacognitive strategy
use between high and low performers on Igbo reading tasks, (f (5, 55) = 4.519, p <
.009).
Table 6: Results of pairwise comparisons on cognitive and metacognitive strategies
used by high and low performers during the reading tasks.
68
Var. Contrasts
df
f
Sig.
Effect size
HPCSU vs LPCSU
1
.328
.578
0.17
HPMSU vs LPCSU
1
7.514
.019
0.64
HPMSU vs LPMSU
1
11.650
.006
0.72
HPMSU vs HPCSU
1
5.880
.034
0.96
LPMSU vs LPCSU
1
.086
.775
0.11
Note: HPCSU = High Performers’ Cognitive Strategy Use; LPCSU = Low
Performers’ Cognitive Use; HPMSU = High Performers’ Metacognitive Strategy
Use; LPMSU = Low Performers’ Metacognitive Strategy Use.
While the two groups did not differ significantly in their reported use of cognitive
strategies, they exhibited significant difference in respect of their reported
metacognitive strategy use.
Research question 3 investigates the cluster of cognitive or metacognitive
strategies reported used most frequently by readers while processing Igbo texts. To
reach decision, the first step was to plot a chart with the data for the reported use of
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to enable a visual comparison. Figure 1 is a
chart showing reported cognitive and metacognitive strategy use by the Igbo readers.
The chart seems to indicate that Igbo readers’ reported frequency of use for
metacognitive strategies appears to be higher than their reported frequency of use for
cognitive strategies during the reading test in Igbo. Suggesting that readers in the
study used the two clusters of strategies differently. However, this visual difference
needed to be tested to ascertain whether it is statistically significant. A paired sample
t-test was then used to statistically compare reported cognitive strategy use with
metacognitive strategy use to determine if the observed visual difference in the
reported use of these variables is statistically significant to warrant drawing the
69
conclusion that readers reported more frequent use of metacognitive strategies than
cognitive strategies.
Fig. 1: Reported average use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
2.95
2.9
Averageratings
2.85
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
2.45
Cognitivestrategyuse
Metacognitivestrategyuse
The result of the paired sample t-test, which compared the reported use of cognitive
strategies with reported metacognitive strategy use, indicated that the reported use of
metacognitive strategies (M = 2.89, SD = .589) was not significantly higher than the
reported use of cognitive strategies (M = 2.60, SD = .737), t (24) = -1.71, p > .05, by
the Igbo readers in the study.
2.7.
Discussion
The fact that literacy does not commence in the L1 for many Igbo native speakers, to
some extent, makes reading in Igbo special for many Igbo children. For example, the
participants in this study reported that their literacy experience with Igbo commenced
between the ages of 10 and 20 years, which is well beyond the normal age for basic
literacy in English in Nigeria, and around the world. Nonetheless, this experience with
L1 literacy is often truncated shortly after since subsequent learning in schools for
70
these readers has to proceed in English. As a result, many Igbo L1 children are hardly
proficient readers in Igbo, which tends to set them apart from L1 readers in EFL
contexts, who often tend to possess well-developed reading proficiency in their L1
before commencing literacy training in English. This study therefore investigated the
cognitive and metacognitive strategies used in Igbo reading by this group of readers to
ascertain how they contribute to reading comprehension in Igbo.
The first research question for the study seeks to identify the cognitive and
metacognitive strategies used substantially during the Igbo reading tasks by this group
of native speakers of Igbo. In respect of research question 1, the study found that this
group of readers reported using substantially three cognitive strategy items, and seven
metacognitive strategy items during the reading task. However, the frequency of use
for these strategy items was ‘often’ (medium-usage level). Nonetheless, their reading
strategies, at the rate they reported to have used them, appear to have had positive
impact on their reading comprehension. So, even when the reported use of 10 out of
the 14 strategies for the reading tasks was at a medium-usage level, they appear to
have contributed to better reading comprehension. However, the study also indicates
that some strategy items were barely used by the readers. The result of the analysis
presented in Table 3 indicates that out of the five cognitive and nine metacognitive
strategy items listed in the questionnaire, cognitive item 1 (‘I translated the reading
text and tasks into English to enhance my understanding’) was considered not used
during the Igbo reading tasks. But further examination of the data in Table 1 reveals
that to some extent there is a degree of disposition among the participants to use the
cognitive strategy of translating from Igbo to English to facilitate their comprehension
in Igbo. Although the participants did not report using this strategy substantially, it
may sound strange that Igbo readers translate Igbo into English to make meaning in
71
Igbo. Albeit low, the mean ratings that the questionnaire item on translating from Igbo
to English has received (M = 2.16) somehow suggest that some participants
sometimes used this strategy. This result seems to indicate that some of these Igbo
readers are more adept in L2 reading than in L1 reading, which is not strange given
the place of English in communal and personal lives of Nigerians. In fact, as a direct
consequence of its role as a Language of Wider Communication (LWC) in Nigeria,
English has become the vehicle of thought among the various linguistic groups in
Nigeria, particularly the Igbo native speakers. Due to the deep rooted nature of
English in Nigeria, some argue for the existence of Nigerian English, a variety of
English considered to be among one of the world Englishes (Ajani, 2007; Bamgbose,
1982; Odumuh, 1987; Ogu, 1992). So, the knowledge that some Igbo L1 readers may
sometimes translate Igbo into English to enhance comprehension in Igbo could also
be interpreted as indicating a unique text processing strategy which has not been
reported among L1 readers in previous studies conducted in EFL contexts (e.g.
Tercanlioglu, 2004; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001), where reading in the L1 often
precedes literacy in the L2. For example, Upton & Lee-Thompson (2001) in their
study, which used think aloud protocol to elicit data, concluded that L1 facilitated the
readers’ use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies because a substantial
proportion of the strategies used by the readers were verbalized in the L1. It is most
probable that readers in Upton & Lee-Thompson’s study verbalized their strategies in
their L1 because the L1 is where they have substantial proficiency being in an EFL
context. In the case of the Igbo readers in the current study, the verbalization of
substantial proportion of reading strategies used to process Igbo texts in a think aloud
situation would most probably be in English. So, it could be argued that English is
active in the mind of these readers even as they try to construct meaning from Igbo
72
texts, which to some extent tends to make processing texts in the L1 special for some
Igbo readers in the ESL context of Nigeria. This phenomenon calls for further
investigation using a more direct measure of strategic behaviour during text
processing.
The other strategy items that the participants rarely reported used were
strategy item 3 (‘I tried to find topics and main ideas of the passage without reading it
in detail’) and item 8 (‘I corrected mistakes immediately when found’) during the
reading tasks. Item 3 refers to the skill of scanning and skimming, and item 8 deals
with double-checking during the reading process.
The second research question sought to investigate the relative effect of
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on the participants’ performance in the
reading task. A popular conception is that the contribution of strategy use to reading
comprehension depends on the extent to which the reader is able to use strategies
effectively. It is not enough to know what strategies to use; what is of great
importance is being able to use them appropriately (Anderson, 1991) because
‘…strategies may contribute to successful comprehension or detract from it’ (Cohen,
1986: 133). Therefore, it could be assumed that despite using few strategies, and at a
medium-usage level, the results obtained suggest that the strategies were put to some
effective use during the reading task, resulting in better achievement in reading
comprehension.
However, the availability of background knowledge on the texts could also
have facilitated the participants’ level of reading comprehension (see Alptekin, 2006;
Lee, 2007; Burgoyne, Whiteley, & Hutchinson, 2013 for the effect of background
knowledge in comprehension), given that the text topics consist of information drawn
from the participants’ cultural milieu. Using background knowledge to aid
73
comprehension is considered as cognitive strategy, which could have significantly
facilitated the participants’ ability to form a coherent mental representation of the
textual information during the reading tasks as suggested by their reported use of
strategy item 5 (I used my prior knowledge to help understand the text).
Reading strategy research indicates that skilled readers use reading
comprehension strategies (RCSs) differently from unskilled readers. In the current
study we went further to also investigate the RCSs used by students with high and low
scores in the Igbo reading tasks. The result of the repeated-measures ANOVA used
for the analysis indicates that the cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies
used differed significantly between students with high and low scores in the reading
tasks. Students that scored high in the reading tasks used significantly more
metacognitive strategies than cognitive strategies, whereas those with low scores did
not differ significantly in their cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. The result
tends to suggest that the performance of the HPs on the reading task relates to high
metacognitive strategy use.
This finding together with the finding that metacognitive strategy use
significantly predicted reading comprehension agrees with studies, which suggest that
metacognitive strategy use, facilitates reading comprehension (e.g., Schoonen et al.,
1998; Tercanlioglu, 2004; van Gelderen, 2007; Young and Oxford, 1997) for L1, and
(Brown, 1978; Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003; Stevenson et al., 2007; Zhang & Wu,
2009) for L2. The result of the regression analysis indicates that metacognitive
strategy use contributed to the reading comprehension of the students during the
reading tasks, accounting for a substantial amount of the variance (i.e. 24.1%) in the
reading scores. This finding provides support to the view that readers who make
effective use of metacognitive strategies during cognitively demanding reading
74
conditions are likely to be successful readers (O’Malley et al., 1985). A close
examination of the standardized regression coefficients discloses that metacognitive
strategies used during the reading tasks made significant contribution to the variance
in the reading comprehension scores of the students thus lending empirical support to
the findings in earlier studies that metacognitive strategy use is a good predictor of
reading comprehension (Guo & Roehrig, 2011; Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b;
Shoerey and Mokhtari, 2001). In the current study, 24.1% of the total variance in the
Igbo reading comprehension scores was explained by metacognitive strategy use. This
indicates that a significant reason for the good performance of the students in the
reading tasks is attributable to the students’ use of metacognitive strategies. For
scholars like (Akkakoson, 2013; Dabarera, Renandya, Zhang, 2014; Lubliner and
Smetana, 2005; Salataci and Akyel, 2002;), who through their studies have advocated
in favour of strategy instruction, this finding could constitute an additional reference.
The finding therefore further demonstrates the unique effect that metacognitive
strategies could have on reading comprehension when they are efficiently put to use.
The third research question sought to determine the cluster of strategies
(cognitive or metacognitive) that readers reported using most frequently while
processing Igbo texts. The study established that the reported level of use for
cognitive and metacognitive strategies did not differ significantly during the reading
task. The result suggests that the Igbo readers generally used cognitive and
metacognitive strategies almost in similar manner while processing Igbo texts. Using
cognitive and metacognitive strategies to process L1 texts in this manner tends to
suggest that this group of L1 readers processed L1 texts differently from readers in
some previous L1 studies conducted in the context of EFL. For example, Stevenson et
al. (2007) reported that cognitive and metacognitive strategies were not significantly
75
used in L1 text processing by readers in the study. However, Young & Oxford (1997)
and Tercanlioglu (2004) reported that only metacognitive strategies were used
substantially to process L1 text by readers in their study. It is clear that results from
the studies mentioned indicate difference in the strategic behaviour of the readers in
those studies and the Igbo readers in the current study. Given these results therefore, it
is probably plausible to assume that reading in L1 for the Igbo native speaker in
Nigerian ESL context could diverge from other L1 reading situations in EFL contexts.
More research is therefore needed to ascertain how L1 reading differ in EFL and ESL
contexts where English is a lingua franca.
Conclusion
2.8.
It is often not clear to teachers why some students exhibit very low rates of
comprehension. The absence of this knowledge leaves such students at the mercy of
fate, given that teachers are unable to provide the right form of help to such students.
For the same reason also designers of reading programmes for schools may fail to
articulate adaptive reading programmes that could help students in this situation. The
result is that teachers are confronted daily with the ‘maddening experience of having a
student who appears to understand every sentence and yet cannot answer the simplest
question about a passage as a whole’ (Eskey, 1973: 177).
What this study was particularly designed to accomplish was to create
awareness of the significant function of RCSs in reading comprehension, be it in the
L1 or the L2, particularly for students and language teachers in Nigeria where the
traditional method of teaching reading still persists in classrooms. The study was
however limited by the fact that a questionnaire rather than more direct methods of
strategy identification during reading was used to elicit data for the study, which
76
raises concern that social desirability or knowledge from other sources could have
affected the questionnaire responses provided by the participants. Another limitation
is sample size, and the fact that the taxonomy of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies investigated in the study does not constitute a comprehensive representation
of the possible reading strategies that readers may employ during reading tasks.
Nonetheless, the study has hinted on the possibility that L1 reading in different
bilingual contexts could diverge. It also demonstrated that poor RCS use has some
consequence on the performance of students in the task of constructing meaning from
texts in one of Nigerian’s native languages. Therefore, since reading strategies are
teachable constructs, providing such instruction to students constitutes a viable way of
facilitating the students’ rate of comprehension even during L1 text processing. The
potential of RCSs in the improvement of students’ performance in reading
comprehension needs to be exploited. It is virtually an untapped resource in the
educational system of Nigeria.
77
References
2.9.
Adedimeji, M. A. (2004). The unifying role of English in a multilingual nation: The
case of Nigeria. In O. Ndimele (Ed.), Language and Culture in Nigeria (pp.
67-74). Aba, Imo State, Nigeria: National Institute for Nigerian Languages.
Ajani, T. T. (2007). Is there indeed a "Nigeria English"? Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences , 1 (1), 1-19.
Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student
learning of L2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal
of Research in Reading , 36 (4), 422-450.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2
reading. System , 34 (4), 494-508.
Alptekin, C., & Ercetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content
familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Tesol
Quarterly , 45 (2), 235-266.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language
reading and testing. Modern Language Journal , 75 (4), 460-472.
Baker, L., & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive process and reading comprehension.
In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on REading
Comprehension (pp. 373-388). New York: Routledge.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson
(Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York:
Longman.
78
Bamgbose, A. (1982). Standard Nigerian English: Issues of identification. In B. B.
Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Bernhardt, E., & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2
reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic
interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics , 16 (1), 15-34.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2
readers. TESOL Quarterly , 26 (2), 319-343.
Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connection between first and second language reading. Journal
of literacy research , 27 (4), 565-584.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (Vol.
1, pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Burgoyne, K. K., Whiteley, H. E., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2013). The role of
background knowledge in text comprehension for children learning English as
an additional language. Journal of Research in Reading , 36 (2), 132-148.
Carifio, L., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50 year debate around using and
misusing Likert scales. Medical Education , 42 (12), 1150-1152.
Cohen, A. (1986). Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent
findings. English for Specific Purposes , 5 (2), 131-145.
Colzato, L. S., Baja, M. T., Van Den Wildenberg, W., & Paolieri, D. (2008). How
does biligualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and
reactive inhibition mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition , 34 (2), 302-312.
79
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/Academic language proficiency, linguistic
interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working
Papers on Bilingualism , 19, 197-202.
Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis
of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on
Bilingualism , 9, 1-43.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive
scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System , 42, 462-473.
Dewaele, J. M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional
intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and
foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical
investigation. Language Learning , 58 (4), 911-960.
Eskey, D. E. (1973). A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of
English as a foreign language. Language Learning , 23 (2), 169-184.
Fecteau, M. L. (1999). First and second language reading comprehension of literary
texts. The modern language journal , 83 (4), 475-493.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th edition).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Guo, Y., & Roehrig, A. D. (2011). Roles of general versus second language (L2)
knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Lnaguage , 23
(1), 42-64.
Hayter, A. J. (1986). The maximum familywise error rate of Fisher's least significant
difference test. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 81 (379),
1000-1004.
80
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education , 38 (12),
1217-1218.
Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of L1
orthographic structures on L2 phonological recoding strategies. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition , 12 (4), 393-410.
Kroll, J. F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of
lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research , 18 (2),
137-171.
Kuzon, W. M., Urbanchek, M. G., & McCabe, S. (1996). The seven deadly sins of
statistical analysis. Annals of Plastic Surgery , 37 (3), 265-272.
Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language
proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the
threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL QUARTERLY , 31 (4), 713739.
Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean
EFL students' reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language
Learning , 57 (1), 87-118.
Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effect of comprehensive vocabulary
instruction on Title 1 students' metacognitive word-learning skills and reading
comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research , 37 (2), 163-200.
Maclntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second
language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning , 47
(2), 265-287.
Magliano, J., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. (2007). A multidimentional
framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.),
81
Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, intervensions, and technologies
(pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP
learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12 (1), 1-9.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics.
Advanced Health Science Education Theory Practice , 15 (5), 626-632.
Odumuh, A. (1987). Nigerian English (NigE). Zaria, Nigeria: Ahmadu Bello
University Press Ltd.
Ogu, J. (1992). A Historical Survey of English and the Nigerian Situation. Lagos:
Krafts Books Ltd.
O'Malley, J., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. (1985a).
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students.
Language learning , 35 (1), 21-46.
Oxford, R. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning
strategies. Applied Language Learning , 7 (1&2), 25-45.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow,
UK: Pearson Education.
Oxford, R., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for
language learning (SILL). System , 23 (1), 1-23.
Parry, K. (1996). Culture, literacy and L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly , 30 (4), 665692.
82
Pascual, G., & Goikoetxea, E. (2014). Comprehension of university texts: Effects of
domain-knowledge and summary. Reading Psychology , 35, 101-126.
Phakiti, A. (2003b). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language
Learning , 53 (4), 649-702.
Phakiti, A. (2003a). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing ,
20 (1), 26-56.
Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer's (1996) strategic
competence model over time in EFL reading test. Language Testing , 25 (2),
237-272.
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A
structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge, England: University of
Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.
Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). Metacognitive strategies awareness and success in
learning English as a foreign language: An overview. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences , 31, 73-81.
Rai, M. K., Loschky, L. C., Haris, R. J., Peck, N. R., & Cook, L. G. (2011). Effects of
stress and working memory capacity on foreign language readers' inferential
processing during comprehension. Language Learning, A Journal of Research
in Language Studies , 61 (1), 187-218.
Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension
with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing
perspective. Language Testing , 23 (4), 441-474.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2
reading. Reading in a Foreign Language , 14 (1), 1-15.
83
Sarig. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some
comparative process data. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrel, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.),
Research in Reading in English as a Second Language (pp. 105-120).
Washington: TESOL.
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific
knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An
empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8, and 10. Language
Learning , 48 (1), 71-106.
Seaman, M. A., Levin, J. R., & Serlin, R. C. (1991). New developments in pairwise
multiple comparison: Some powerful and practicable procedures.
Psychological Bulletin , 110 (3), 577-586.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System , 29 (4), 431449.
SPSS, I. (2010). SPSS Version 19.0 [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & De Glopper, K. (2007). Inhibition or compensation?
A multidimensional comparison of reading process in Dutch and English.
Language learning , 57 ((Suppl. 1)), 115-154.
Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students' use of reading strategies in L1 and
ESL contexts: Links to success. International Education Journal , 5 (4), 562570.
Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second
language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 23 (4), 469-495.
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R., Glopper, K., & Hulstijin, J. (2007).
Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and
84
language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of
Educational Psychology , 99 (3), 477-491.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary
knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review , 53 (1),
13-40.
Yau, J.-l. C. (2009). Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents:
Knowledge and application of strategic reading. Metacognition and Learning ,
4 (3), 217-235.
Young, D. J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to
process written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied
Language Learning , 8, 43-73.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students'
metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign
Language , 21 (1), 37-59.
85
Appendix A: Biodata data questionnaire
About the Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to elicit some background information about the
students participating in this study. Please be assured that all information provided
will be treated as confidential. I sincerely appreciate your decision to be a participant
in this study.
Please note that there are no right and wrong answers to the questions in the
questionnaire, so feel free to provide the answers that you deem right.
Questionnaire
Please take a little time and respond to all the questions in this questionnaire. You are
free to seek clarification where you are in doubt. Tick as appropriate please. You are
also free to tick as many answers as you think appropriate in each question.
1. Which is your native language?
Igbo☐ Hausa ☐
Yoruba ☐
English ☐
None ☐
2.Which other languages do you also speak?
Hausa ☐ Yoruba ☐ English ☐
Others__________________________________(Pls. name the languages)
3. At which age did you start learning English? ______________________________
4. Please rate your Reading Ability in English Language using the scale below:
86
No ability (0) ☐Low (1) ☐Fairly low (2) ☐Fairly high (3) ☐High (4) ☐V. High
(5) ☐
5. Can you read in your native language?
Yes ☐ No ☐
6. At which age did you start learning to read in your native language? ____________
7. Please rate your Reading Ability in your Native Language using the scale below:
No ability (0) ☐Low (1) ☐Fairly low (2) ☐Fairly high (3) ☐High (4) ☐V. High
(5) ☐
8. Which language(s) do you speak at home? ___________(Pls. name the languages)
9. In which of these other languages can you read?
Hausa ☐ Yoruba ☐ English ☐ Others -------------------------------- (Pls. name the
languages)
10. Please rate your comprehension Ability in your Native Language using the scale
below:
No ability (0) ☐Low (1) ☐Fairly low (2) ☐Fairly high (3) ☐High (4) ☐V. High
(5) ☐
87
11. Please rate your comprehension Ability in English Language using the scale
below:
No ability (0) ☐Low (1) ☐Fairly low (2) ☐Fairly high (3) ☐High (4) ☐V. High
(5) ☐
Participant Information
What is your Registration Number? __________________________________
What is your subject combination? __________________________________
What is your class level?
__________________________________
How old are you?
__________________________________
Do you have any hearing problem? Yes
No
If YES please say the nature of
the hearing problem_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Do you have problem with your vision?
Yes
No
If YES please say the
nature of the vision problem you have ______________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Do you have problem with reading texts?
Yes ☐No☐ If YES please say the
nature of the problem ________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Please indicate your gender
Male
Please give your phone number.
__________________________________
Female
88
Thank you for volunteering to participate in my study.
89
Appendix B: Igbo RC passages
Jiri nwayqq gxq ederede a ma zaa ajxjx so ya.
EDEREDE I
Agha rip[ara ihe niile Ezeudo rxtara n’qrx bekee kemgbe qgx afq na iri. Q na-elezi
anya [la ezumike nka mgbe agha dqbiri. Nd[ nwere ohere kwakqrq ihe ha gbawa qsq
ndx site Oduma gbagawa Udenta mana nd[ o ribidoro zqwara naan[ isi onwe ha.
Maaz[ Ezeudo ejighi nta, o jighi imo lqta. Mana nd[ obodo ya kelere Olisa bi n’igwe
niihi na o ji ndx ya lqta n’obodo ha. Na nghqta ha, onye ji ndx ji ihe niile. Ezeudo
hxrx qnqdx ya d[ka q d[ ndx qnwx ka mma. O jiri eze were kpere ekwere nke na onye
hxrx ya ga-amata na nwoke na-ap[ xkwa na qrx na-eme.
Ihe Maaz[ Ezeudo gabigara tupu agha a akwxs[ abxgh[ ihe e ji qnx nkiti akq. E
wezxga enyemaka nd[ qch[ch[ site n’ibunye nd[ mmadx ihe oriri di iche iche n’efu,
oke osisi kara [daru ala. Nwaamad[ a bx onye nwere akq na uche ma bxrxkwa onye
hxrx nd[ obodo ya n’anya. Q bx eziokwu na akx na xba ya efuchaala mana amamiihe
ya efughi. Agha a nqrq naan[ qgx afq na iri were kwxs[ mana onye lere Maaz[ Ezeudo
anya n’ahx pxrx [gxta qkpxkpx ya qnx. O tegh[ aka, ihe a nxrx bx na agha ebeela.
Ozigbo agha kwxs[r[ nd[ Amokwe hqpxtara ya ka q bxrx eze na-ach[ obodo ha niihi
na eze ha nwxrx anwx mgbe a na-alx agha. Nd[ qch[ch[ wuru ya xlq nwere agba ma
bxnyekwa ya xgbqala bx [chaka nke o ji akpaghar[. Qnqdx a mere o jiri chefuo ajq ihe
niile q gab[gara mgbe a na-alx agha. O jiri amamiihe ya na itu egwu Chukwu were
ch[a nd[ obodo ya qtxtx afq tupu o bulara chi ya xkpa. Mmemme olili na qkwxkwa
ozu ya bx qpxrx iche n’obodo Amokwe. Qha obodo niile zuru oke xbqch[ ahx. Ihe
oriri na nke q]x]x bx atxrx taba.
Zaa ajxjx nd[ a:
1. N’ederede a, oke osisi kara [daru ala na-egosi na Maaz[ Ezeudo…
A.
B.
C.
D.
kara [nwx qnwx
[ta oke ahxhx
iso lxq qgx
igbu osisi
2. Qgx afq na iri pxtara g[n[?
A.
B.
C.
D.
iri abxq na iri
qgx iri
iri qgx atq
iri atq
3. kedu aha obodo Maaz[ Ezeudo?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Udenta
Amokwe
Oduma
Osisiqma
4. Otu n’ime ihe nd[ a ka nd[ qch[ch[ emegh[ n’ederede a
A.
B.
C.
iwuru eze obodo xlq
ibute ihe oriri mgbe agha
[kwxs[ agha
90
D.
[zxtara eze obodo xgbqala
5. Ihe oriri bx atxrx taba d[ka q d[ n’ederede a gosiri na ihe oriri…
A.
B.
C.
D.
atxrx jupxtara
ezugh[ oke
d[ qtxtx
bx nke atxrx ga-ataba
Ederede II
Na[jir[a bx obodo qma nke Chukwu goziri nke na mmiri ara ehi na mmanx a]x naasqpxta ebe dum n’ikem n’ikem. E nwere agbxrx atq mejupxtara ya d[ka; Hausa, Igbo
na Yoruba. Nke q bxla n’ime ha atq nwegbadoro obodo nta d[ iche iche mebere ya.
Malite n’afq 1960 ruo 2011, Na[jir[a bx obodo a mara ama d[ ka nd[ e jiri udo na [d[
n’otu mara. Mana ugbu a, tigbuo zogbuo meziri obodo a echeta ebewe. Qnqdx a mere
onye q bxla taa kpuchie qnx. Nke mere na nne amagh[z[ nwa nke nwa ji ama nne ya.
Onye q bxla na-eze mmadx ibe ya ka onye bu qr[a ekpenta.
Na Hausa, nd[ Boko Haram na-ah[qtx. N’ala Igbo, nd[ ntqr[ ekwegh[ mmadx ]xq
mmiri tqgbq iko. Na Yoruba, nd[ ohi were qnqdx ebe ahx. A ga-ekwu ole ghara ibe
ya. Mpaghara obodo q bxla nwere ihe mmekpa ahx nd[ niile bi n’obodo ahx ji ata
ikekere eze. Ka o sila d[, ihe abxq ma q bx kar[a d[ njq ga-enweriri nke ka ibe ya
jqkar[a njq. Book Haram karisiri jqq njq n’ime nsogbu nd[ a chere Na[jir[a aka mgba.
Book Haram amagh[ qgaranya nke o ji ama okenye, q magh[ nwoke ma q bx nwaany[,
nwata ma q bx okenye. Q na-eji ogbu n’igwe akxp[as[ ndx mmadx na akx na xba
p[ap[a ka ebe a na-alx agha.
Qnxqgx akx na xba na ndx mmadx Boko Haram mebiri bx agxg[de agba awara. A naekwu nke emere xny[a, a na-anx ebe q na-akpqtx ozigbo ozigbo ahx, a nqrq na ya naenwetakwa ozi ebe a siri na ha ga-aga wakpuo n’oge ad[gh[ anya. Q d[ mkpa ka nd[
qch[ch[ obodo na nd[ Mba Xwa mara otu ha ga-esi mee ka ajq qnqdx a kwxs[ tupu ihe
mmadx aghoo ihe onye qzq. E mee ngwa ngwa emeghara qdach[. Q d[gh[ mma
mmadx nk[t[ Chukwu kere [bx qgbata uhie n’ebe mmadx ibe ya nq. Udo ka mma.
Udo na-ebute qganiihu, ogologo ndx, ahx ike na ezigbo mmekqr[ta n’etiti mmadx na
ibe ya.
Zaa ajxjx nd[ a:
1. D[ka o siri d[r[ n’ederede a, ‘…ekwegh[ mmadx ]xq mmiri tqgbq iko’ pxtara
g[n[?
A.
B.
C.
D.
ekwegh[ mmadx ]xq mmiri
ekwegh[ mmadx zuo ike
ekwegh[ mmadx togbo iko
ekwegh[ mmadx ahx nd[ ntqr[
2. Kedu mpaghara obodo ihe mmekpa ahx ha kar[s[ jqq njq?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Hausa
Igbo
Yoruba
Na[jir[a
3. Otu n’ime ihe nd[ a esogh[ na nsogbu chere Na[jir[a aka mgba
A.
B.
C.
D.
Boko Haram
ntqr[
ohi
iri ngar[
4. Agxgide agba awara d[ka q d[ n’ederede a bx
91
A.
B.
C.
D.
ijeri
nde
ad[gh[ qgxgx
puku
5. N’uche g[ d[ka nwaamala Igbo, kedu aha a ga-enye ederede a?
A.
B.
C.
D.
Na[jir[a na tigbuo zogbuo
Boko Haram na Na[jir[a
Qnqdx Na[jir[a taa
Na[jir[a xny[a na taa
EDEREDE III
Nd[ enyi abxq, Ikenna na Ugwu kpebiri na ha ga-ele ule e ji aba mahadum.
Ugwu hqqrq xlqakwxkwq d[ n’Alaqcha d[ka ebe q ga-ele ule mana Ikenna hqqrq
xlqakwxkwq d[ n’imeobodo. Mgbe qbxla, Ugwu nq na-agx akwxkwq ya maka ule ha
na-ab[a nso; Ikenna nq na-egbu oge. O jigh[ akwxkwq ya kpqrq ihe.
Mgbe oge e ji ele ule ruru, Ikenna gara ebe ahx o tinyere ule, kwxq nnukwu
xgwq ruru puku Na[ra iri na ise maka okwe ule a ga-ewetara ya. Ka xbqch[ ahx ruru,
ha gara ebe xle ha d[ iche iche. Ugwu lere ule ya d[ka q kwes[r[ ma Ikenna ruru ebe
nke ya, eke etie ya. Ihe q txrx anya ya abxgh[ ihe q hxrx. Nd[ na-ele ha ule kpachis[r[
ebe niile. Okwe ule agbagh[ d[ka o si chee. Nke a mere na q ch[tagh[ aja n’ule ahx.
Mgbe rizqltx pxtara, Ugwu gafere n’ule ahx ebe Ikenna kxrx afq n’ala. Ihe a
txrx Ugwu n’anya nke mere ka q jxq Ikenna ihe butere qd[da ya. Ikenna zara ya si:
“Nnaa, agara m ebe m chere na ma ga-enwete enyemaka ule mana ebe niile kpach[r[
akpach[, amakwagh[ m ihe m dere. Nke a mere ….” O kwuchagh[, Ugwu a jxq ya:
“Kedu ka [ ga-esi rie ebe [ na-arxgh[ qrx?”
6.
Mmadx abxq a kpqrq aha n’ederede a bx
A.
B.
C.
D.
7.
Ihe a kqrq maka ya bx etu mmadx abxq a siri
A.
B.
C.
D.
8.
edegh[ ule ahx
agxgh[ akwxkwq maka ule ahx
akwadogh[ onwe ya nke qma maka ule ahx
edetagh[ ihe n’ule ahx.
Puku Na[ra iri na ise pxtara
A.
B.
q gxgh[ akwxkwq ya
q kwxgh[ xgwq a s[ ya kwxq
q gagh[ xle ahx n’oge
o degh[ ihe qbxla.
N’ederede a, “q ch[tagh[ aja n’ule ahx” pxtara Ikenna
A.
B.
C.
D.
10.
banye mahadum
gxq akwxkwq
mee mpx
lee ule.
Ihe mere Ikenna jiri daa ule ya bx na
A.
B.
C.
D.
9.
agbataobi
xmxnne
enyi
qgq.
N150.00
N150,000.00
92
C.
D.
N1,500.00
N15,000.00
Chapter 3
3.
Exploring the reading comprehension strategies of ESL
learners: the role of second language vocabulary size and
proficiency
Abstract
The role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension strategy (RCS) use
during reading in the second language has only been examined in one EFL study in
which reading strategy use was measured as trait strategy use rather than state strategy
use. This study investigated how second-language (L2) vocabulary size and
proficiency affect the use of state RCSs in an English as a Second Language (ESL)
setting. Twenty-seven Igbo ESL students, from a teacher training college in Nigeria
participated in the study. The participants took the grammar section of the Oxford
Placement Test (OPT) (Allan, 2004), and the Vocabulary Size Test (Nation & Beglar,
2007). On a later day, they read three passages with multiple-choice questions, and
answered a reading comprehension strategies questionnaire after reading each
passage. Results indicate that although vocabulary size and L2 proficiency do not
predict RCS use, high vocabulary size was significantly related to high use of
cognitive reading strategies and low vocabulary size to low use of cognitive
strategies. Finally, RCS use was not significantly related to reading comprehension,
nor did L2 proficiency relate to RCS use. The findings on the relationship between
vocabulary size and use of cognitive strategies was interpreted to support the claim
that cognitive strategies (CSs) are knowledge based, and they rely heavily on the
93
94
linguistic competence of the reader (Phakiti, 2003). The pedagogical implications of
the study are discussed.
Introduction
3.1.
Several studies indicate that RCS use is vital for reading comprehension (e.g., Chen et
al., 2009; Guo & Roehrig, 2011; Nergis, 2013; Sheorey and Mokhtari, 2001).
Researchers have, consequently, investigated the determinants of RCS use. L2
proficiency has consistently been found to predict RCS use, explaining between .30
and .78 of the variance in strategy use (Anderson, 2005).
Although studies exploring the relationship between L2 proficiency and RCS
provide valuable information on the relationship between RCS use and L2 proficiency
(e.g., Ghafournia & Afghari, 2013; Phakiti, 2003b; Rahimi et al., 2009; Sarig, 1987;
Zhang & Wu, 2009), it is still unclear what role vocabulary knowledge plays in RCS
use, given its role in L2 reading proficiency (see Brisbois, 1995; Kim & Cho, 2015;
Milton, 2013; Zhang, 2012). It has been suggested that RCS use could be a function
of vocabulary and encyclopedic knowledge (Anderson, 1991). In fact, research
suggests vocabulary knowledge affects the number and type of lexical inferencing
strategies used by L2 readers during L2 reading comprehension (see Calvo, 2005;
Nassaji, 2004;).
It has also been claimed that the ability to use background knowledge (a
cognitive strategy) during reading depends on vocabulary knowledge. For researchers
like Fisher and Frey (2009), vocabulary knowledge is an indicator of learners’
background knowledge. It is also associated with the use of certain problem-solving
strategies in cases of a breakdown in constructing meaning from text (Cromley &
Azevedo, 2007).
95
However, apart from studies that specifically explored the unique
contributions of vocabulary knowledge to the use of strategies of lexical inferencing
and background knowledge use, studies that investigated the possible contributions of
vocabulary knowledge to RCS use in general have not been conducted. The purpose
of this study therefore is to determine the effect of L2 vocabulary size and proficiency
on RCS use. The next section explains the construct of RCSs, while the subsequent
section provides explanation on how cognitive and metacognitive strategies relate to
reading comprehension.
3.1.1. Reading comprehension strategies (RCSs)
Most researchers have distinguished learner strategies into two types, ‘learning
strategies’ and ‘use strategies’ (but see Bialystok, 1990). ‘Learning strategies’ are
used for language learning or acquisition, and ‘use strategies’ are employed by
learners to enhance performance (Phakiti, 2003). RCSs constitute use strategies. They
have been defined as ‘the conscious actions readers use to repair breakdowns in
comprehension (cognitive strategies) or the deliberate actions readers use to monitor
and oversee those attempts at repair (metacognitive strategies) (McNeil, 2011: 885,
citing O’Malley and Chamot, 1990).
Defining reading strategies as conscious and deliberate behaviour derives from
the constructivist self-control theory of information processing, proposed by Gagné et
al. (1993). Within this theoretical understanding of human information processing,
reading strategies are conceived as ‘deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and
modify the reader’s effort to decode text, understand words, and construct meaning of
text’ (Afflerbach et al., 2008: 368). Since strategies are conscious and deliberate
behaviours, strategic readers are able to examine their strategy use, monitor its
96
effectiveness, and revise set goals and means if required (Afflerbach et al., 2008). The
flexibility and adaptability that is involved in strategy use is one factor that
distinguishes RSs from reading skills. Another is the ‘element of choice involved in
their selection’, which Cohen (1986: 239) argues also distinguishes them from other
processes. The reader’s ability to examine strategy use, monitor its effectiveness, and
revise set goals during the reading process is a kind of metacognitive processing.
In the current study the operationalization of RCSs follows Phakiti’s (2003)
categorization of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies (CSs)
‘relate to the target language and world knowledge of the learners, which allow them
to construct meaning from text, and to perform the given task’, while metacognitive
strategies (MSs) ‘relate to self-management or self-regulation in a given reading
activity’ (Phakiti, 2003: 651). In Phakiti’s categorization, which was inspired by the
strategy taxonomy proposed by O’Malley & Chamot (1990), CSs consist of ‘making
predictions, translating, summarizing, linking with prior knowledge or experience,
applying grammar rules and guessing meaning from context’, while MSs consist of
planning and monitoring strategies. Planning strategies involve previewing or
overviewing a task to decide on a course of action. Monitoring strategies involve
actions like checking, monitoring and evaluating one’s thinking and reading
performance.
3.1.2. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies in L2 reading
comprehension
The effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on L2 reading comprehension
has been explored in several studies. Most of those studies (e.g. Guo & Roehrig,
2011; Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b; Shoerey and Mokhtari, 2001; Yau, 2009;)
97
found an effect for cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on L2 reading
comprehension. For example, Yau (2009) found a significant positive effect for
cognitive strategies on reading comprehension in the L2, while metacognitive strategy
use was positively but not significantly correlated with reading comprehension
performance in the L2. Guo and Roehrig (2011) also found an effect for cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use on reading comprehension using structural equation
modeling (SEM). However, while the structural path from L2 language (vocabulary
and syntactic knowledge) to L2 reading comprehension was significant, the path from
metacognitive strategies to L2 reading comprehension was not significant although
they were highly correlated. The researcher attributed the non significant relationship
between metacognitive strategy use and reading comprehension to the effect of the
linguistic variables (vocabulary and syntactic knowledge) that were jointly
investigated in the study. By contrast, Nergis (2013) found that metacognitive reading
strategy was the strongest predictor of academic reading comprehension.
Evidence from studies on strategy instruction also provides support for the
effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy on reading comprehension. Salataci and
Akyel (2002) investigated the effect of strategy instruction and use on the L1 and L2
RCS and reading comprehension of Turkish EFL students. Results suggested that
following RS instruction the students’ L1 and L2 RCS use improved and their reading
comprehension scores increased. However, this study was silent on the mediating
effect of language proficiency levels, which has been found to play a role in strategy
use.
Akkakoson (2013) investigated the relationship between strategy instruction,
learning of L2 RCS use and English reading achievement through a quasi-experiment
with Thai university students. While the reading comprehension scores of the control
98
group did not improve during the course of the study, the reading comprehension
scores of the experimental group showed a significant improvement. The study also
found that the explicit strategy instruction given to the experimental group resulted in
the readers’ ‘greater metacognitive awareness of the need to be strategic and monitor
comprehension’ (Akkakoson 2013: 442).
In
Dabarera,
Renandya,
and
Zhang
(2014)
Singaporean
students’
metacognitive strategy awareness and use improved through instruction, which in turn
led to an increase in the reading comprehension scores of the ESL students. The study
found a positive correlation between metacognitive awareness and use and increase in
reading scores of the Singaporean students.
Finally, Lubliner and Smetana (2005) investigated the effectiveness of a
metacognitive
strategy
instruction
program,
Comprehensive
Vocabulary
Development, in increasing reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. The
study found that metacognitive instruction led to a significant gain in vocabulary and
reading comprehension for the low-performing school children.
Studies reviewed so far provide some evidence of the effect of RCS use in
predicting reading performance, which appears to be of unique importance to reading
strategies researchers. However, how RCS use is affected by factors like vocabulary
knowledge and proficiency, particularly when the effect of vocabulary knowledge is
partialled out in a regression model is not well understood. Therefore the role of
proficiency in relation to the use of RCSs is the focus of the subsequent discussion.
3.1.3. L2 proficiency and reading comprehension strategy use
In the field of reading strategy research, several studies have demonstrated that
strategic competence could be a function of L2 proficiency. Even in situations that
99
high-proficiency and low-proficiency L2 readers have been found to use the same
types of reading strategies (see Anderson, 1991; Yang, 2002; Zhang et al., 2008) high
proficiency readers have been found to use a higher variety of strategies and to use
strategies more effectively (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Therefore strategic
competence, as an attribute, has consistently been associated with reading proficiency.
Consequently, poor and good readers are not only distinguished by the levels of
linguistic competence they possess, but also through the varying levels of strategic
competence exhibited during reading. Reading proficiency therefore emerges as a
convergence of linguistic and strategic competence. These two levels of competence
are essential components of communicative language ability (Bachman, 1990). Hence
in the extended compensatory model of L2 reading, it is posited that strategic
knowledge and L2 language knowledge constitute essential sources of knowledge in
L2 reading (McNeil, 2012).
In RCS research, the quality and quantity of use of certain RCSs is associated
with levels of reading ability and success. For example, Phakiti (2003b) found that
highly successful L2 readers use significantly more cognitive and metacognitive
strategies in reading than low unsuccessful L2 readers. Phakiti (2003b: 670) also
claims that ‘less successful learners choose less effective strategies and use them less
effectively than more successful learners’. According to Baker and Brown (1984)
cited in Yau (2009: 218) ‘while reading, good readers employ not only more CSs, but
also high-level strategies’. High-level strategies indicate MSs, which studies have
shown are more regularly and efficiently employed by good readers (see Rasekh &
Ranjbary, 2003; Zhang et al., 2008; Zhang & Wu, 2009). Studies (e.g., Nergis, 2013;
Sheorey and Mokhtari, 2001) posit that the ability to regulate the use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies is a hallmark of skilled readers.
100
Several studies provide evidence of how RCS use relates to L2 proficiency
(e.g. Block, 1986; Ghafournia & Afghari, 2013; Phakiti, 2003b; Rahimi et al., 2009;
Sarig, 1987; Zhang & Wu, 2009). Block (1986) found that even within a group of
poor readers that failed a college reading proficiency test, the ESL learners who were
‘integrators’ (‘subjects who […] were generally aware of text structure, and
monitored their understanding consistently and effectively’ (p. 482)) performed better
in reading comprehension and were found to use RCSs differently from ‘nonintegrators’ (subjects who ‘seemed to rely much more on their personal experiences to
help them develop a version of the text’ (p. 482)). The fact that these participants
exhibited variation in the use of RCSs is notable because it provides evidence of how
readers with different proficiency levels, as indicated by the participants’ scores on
standardized reading tests and their first semester grade point average, could diverge
in their use of reading strategies. It suggests that divergence in reading proficiency
will almost certainly be partly a function of strategy use.
Several studies (e.g. Ghafournia & Afghari, 2013; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Phakiti, 2003b; Zhang & Wu, 2009) suggest that L2 proficiency has a significant
effect on RCS use. In most of these studies, proficiency was vaguely measured using
participants’ performance on the reading comprehension tasks provided for the
studies. Measuring proficiency in this way could be problematic because performance
in a reading comprehension task may not be a true reflection of L2 proficiency.
Studies (e.g. Ulijn & Strother, 1990; Zhang, 2012) have suggested that performance at
a reading comprehension task is not related to L2 grammatical knowledge, which is
an aspect of L2 proficiency. It may therefore be logical to assess L2 proficiency with
a distinct measure of L2 proficiency, and then compare the readers’ use of reading
strategies during the reading task with their performance in the proficiency test to
101
determine how the two relate. The current study addresses this concern by
incorporating explicit measure of L2 proficiency in the study design.
Some studies found no evidence of any differences in the strategy use of
successful and unsuccessful L2 readers (e.g., Rahimi et al., 2009; Sarig, 1987). For
example Rahimi et al. (2009) suggested that L2 proficiency played no significant role
in the use of RCSs operationalized as contextual strategies (strategies used to identify
the syntactic structure for textual cohesions during the construction of meaning from
texts), and intratextual strategies (strategies that primarily use lexical constituents of a
text to enable meaning construction) (Chavez, 1994) in their study. However, Sarig’s
finding has been criticized for the level of L2 proficiency of the participants in the
study, which has been described as low. The point is that within the framework of the
‘threshold hypothesis’ it is suggested that the transfer or application of strategic
competence is a function of the attainment of a certain level of L2 proficiency
(Alderson, 1984), which studies have shown to be the case. For example, while Guo
and Roehrig (2011) found that metacognitive awareness was not as important as other
predictors (L2 syntax and vocabulary) in predicting reading comprehension for less
advanced EAP learners, Nergis (2013) found that the strongest predictor of academic
reading comprehension for her advanced ELT students was metacognitive reading
strategies.
Given the discussion above, it may be plausible to argue that the relationship
between L2 proficiency and the use of RCSs is not yet well established. This assertion
is predicated on the fact that L2 proficiency was not explicitly measured in most of
the previous studies. The conflicting findings in those studies further corroborate this
position, hence justifying the current investigation. Similarly, not much is known
about the role of vocabulary knowledge in the use of RCSs in ESL reading
102
comprehension, given the virtual absence of studies that investigated this relationship
particularly in ESL context. Vocabulary knowledge and strategic knowledge
constitute knowledge sources within the framework of the compensatory model of L2
reading (Bernhardt, 2005; McNeil, 2012), which ESL readers draw on to enable
meaning construction in the L2. Therefore, examining how these two knowledge
sources relate during text processing in the L2 could significantly contribute to our
understanding of ESL reading within the proposed compensatory model of L2
reading. At this juncture, a review of the contribution of vocabulary to RCS use is
examined.
3.1.4. Vocabulary size in reading comprehension strategy use
The role of vocabulary in L2 reading comprehension is well established, but its role in
the use of RCSs is not. Some researchers have reported that increase in a reader’s
vocabulary size leads to an increase in the frequency of RCSs used (Brisbois, 1995;
Nassaji, 2004). For example, Brisbois (1995: 578) claims that ‘as L2 vocabulary
knowledge gradually increases, and readers gain in automaticity, various reading
strategies and skills can be used more and more’, while Nassaji (2004) claims that
vocabulary knowledge increases the lexical inferencing strategies that readers
employ. Others argue that the ability to use background knowledge or to predict
meaning during the reading process is also affected by the readers’ vocabulary
knowledge (Koda, 1989; Strother & Ulijn, 1987).
However, how vocabulary knowledge relates to RCS (cognitive and
metacognitive) use in general during ESL reading, to the best of my knowledge, has
not yet been investigated. Previous studies have tended to focus specifically on the
role of vocabulary knowledge on the strategy of lexical inferencing, but not on the
103
role that the knowledge of vocabulary could play in the reader’s ability to use other
cognitive and metacognitive strategies during L2 text processing. These studies have
suggested that readers’ ability to infer the meaning of words is related to their
vocabulary knowledge (Calvo, 2005; Nassaji, 2004). For example, Nassaji (2004)
investigated how L2 learners’ depth of vocabulary knowledge relates to the degree
and type of the lexical inferencing strategies that they use in reading comprehension.
It was found that participants with strong depth of vocabulary knowledge use certain
types of lexical inferencing strategies more frequently and more effectively than those
with weak depth of vocabulary knowledge. Depth of vocabulary knowledge was also
found to contribute significantly to successful inferencing.
Therefore, the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and the use of
lexical inferencing strategies, considered to be cognitive strategies (Phakiti, 2003b),
tends to suggest that there is a gap in literature on the role of vocabulary knowledge in
the use of other CSs, during reading comprehension. CSs, which according to Phakiti
(2003b: 651) include ‘translating, summarizing, applying grammar rules, guessing
meaning from context’ are reading processes that require a certain degree of
vocabulary knowledge. For example, Chou (2013: 187) reported that unfamiliar
vocabulary in the text read by the participants in his study ‘resulted in a higher
frequency of certain CS uses’. However, due to a virtual absence of studies that
explored the effect of vocabulary knowledge on the use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies in ESL and EFL reading strategy literature, not much is
known about how L2 vocabulary knowledge could predict the use of reading
strategies.
To the best of my knowledge, Al-Nujaidi (2003) is the only study
investigating the relationship between vocabulary sizes and reading strategy use in the
104
context of EFL reading comprehension. It examined, among other things, the
relationship between vocabulary knowledge and RCS use of first year EFL learners in
Saudi Arabia. The researcher reported that participants with larger vocabulary size
reported using reading strategies more frequently than their counterparts with low
vocabulary size. The high and middle vocabulary proficiency groups in the study
‘showed more frequent use of all types of reading strategies than the low vocabulary
proficiency group’ (Al-Nujaidi, 2003: 119). Al-Nujaidi (2003: 147) concluded that
‘extensive vocabulary knowledge seems to trigger successful use of appropriate
reading strategies’. However, this study tended to have measured the readers’ ‘trait’
reading strategies, and not their ‘state’ reading strategies. This suggestion is
predicated on the fact that participants were asked to report on their reading strategies
by responding to a reading strategies survey questionnaires before attempting the
reading comprehension tasks. It is therefore doubtful how the strategies reported by
the participants before embarking on the reading tasks could be deemed objective
measure of the actual strategies employed by the readers during the reading task.
The current study aims to see whether Al-Nujaidi’s (2003) conclusion can be
generalized to a population of ESL speakers, namely Igbo native speakers of English
even when readers’ ‘state’ reading strategies are measured. In order to ensure an
effective assessment of the relationship between vocabulary size, L2 proficiency, and
the use of RCSs, the current study investigates how these variables relate to the use of
a specific cluster of cognitive and metacognitive strategies during a reading
comprehension task. The cognitive and metacognitive strategies investigated are
associated with reading comprehension during EFL text processing in test taking
condition. The aim is to as much as possible establish specific clusters of state
cognitive or metacognitive strategies that are related to ESL readers’ vocabulary size
105
and L2 proficiency as they process texts in the L2. The research questions that guided
the study are as follows:
Research questions
3.2.
1. Which are the RCSs used by teacher training students who are native speakers
of Igbo, during L2 reading tasks?
2. What is the relative effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on
reading comprehension for the Igbo ESL speakers?
3. Which is the relative effect of L2 vocabulary size, and L2 proficiency levels
on the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by teacher training
students, who are native speakers of Igbo, during L2 reading?
Method
3.3.
3.3.1. Participants
The study was carried out in a College of Education in Nigeria. The participants in the
study consist of 27 students from the College, 4 males and 23 females, who were
enrolled in either art or science related courses. Their average age was 26.5 years (SD
= 3.896), and they had been studying in the College for a period of one to three years
(M = 1.96, SD = .854).
To elicit information on their English language use and acquisition, a language
learning, use and acquisition self-report questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale
was administered (see Appendix A). The aim was to ensure that the participants
qualify to be classified as ESL speakers. The questionnaire was also intended to
identify participants that could be afflicted with any form of impairment (e.g.
106
dyslexia, visual or hearing problems), which could negatively affect their
performance on the tasks. 14 of the participants reported speaking Igbo language
exclusively at home, 10, reported speaking a combination of Igbo and English, while
2 reported speaking Igbo, English and Hausa at home. Only one participant reported
speaking only English at home.
All the participants reported to have started learning reading in English before
the age of eight, whereas only 9 of the participants reported that they started learning
reading in Igbo by the age of eight. In fact, 18 reported to be within the ages of 15 and
20 years the time they started learning to read in Igbo. Two participants failed to
indicate the age at which they started learning to read in Igbo. None of the
participants reported being dyslexic, nor did any report having any hearing or visual
impairment.
All the participants voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. They were
given N1,000 worth of global system for mobile communication (GSM) top-up for
their participation.
3.4.
Procedures
The researcher embarked on this investigation after obtaining ethical approval from
the University of Essex. Data for the study was then collected in two sessions over a
period of two days. On day one, participants used 10 minutes to complete the
Participant’s Information Sheet and Consent Form. Then, they used an average of 5
minutes to respond to the background information questionnaire, after which they
completed the Vocabulary Size Test (VST), and the grammar section of the Oxford
Placement Test (OPT). For the VST, participants were told that they could use as
much time as necessary to ponder over the items while completing the task, as
107
recommended by Nation and Beglar (2007). Therefore no time limit was set for the
task. However, they completed the VST in an average time of about 45 minutes. 30
minutes were allowed for the OPT, which is the average recommended time for
completing the grammar part of the test. At the end of the test taking session on day
one, norming of the strategy questionnaire to be used on the second day of data
collection was conducted with the participants in groups of between 6 and 7. They
were asked to go through it, without any time restriction, and report any item that was
not comprehensible to them. 90% of them identified one particular item, ‘I
determined how to solve the test’ as incomprehensible. The item was therefore
excluded from the questionnaire that was used on the second day of data collection.
Each session of the norming exercise lasted an average of 15 minutes.
On day two of the data collection, participants took the reading
comprehension test, and answered the strategy questionnaire on the passages. The
reading comprehension test consists of three passages. Accompanying each passage
are five multiple-choice questions. Participants read and answered the comprehension
questions for each of the three passages, one after the other. Each participant was also
required to answer the strategy questionnaire immediately after reading and
answering questions on each passage. In other words, the participants answered the
strategy questionnaire three times during the data collection session. Each participant
was allowed 35 minutes to read each passage, answer the questions, and respond to
the strategy questionnaire. The entire session lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes.
Participants were required to answer the strategy questionnaire for each passage read
to ensure that the response provided on the passages captured the true strategic
behaviour exhibited by the participant while reading a particular passage. Each of the
tasks and the questionnaire used for the study are briefly described below.
108
3.4.1.1.
Reading comprehension tests
The reading comprehension ability of the participants was tested with three passages
adapted from past West African Examination Council (WAEC) tests, and the Joint
Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) tests. The WAEC and JAMB set
qualifying standardized tests for students in the entire West Africa. The WAEC sets
and administers the Ordinary Levels (OL) tests that qualify students to seek admission
into any tertiary institution in Nigeria and all over the world, while the JAMB sets and
administers entrance tests into the tertiary institutions in Nigeria, also based on the
OL syllabus. Because these tests are standardized tests, the researcher did not pilot
them for reliability and validity. The Flesch reading ease test for the three passages
yielded 59.1%, 53.4%, and 65.3% readability scores for passage one, two, and three
respectively, while the Flesch-Kincaid grade levels estimate for all the passages is
11.7, 12.1, and 9.6 for passages one, two, and three respectively. These values
indicate that the texts used for the study were within the range recommended for this
category of readers.
The only modification to the texts was providing titles where the original
English passages had no titles. This was done to facilitate the evaluation of their use
of a reading strategy like ‘using titles of texts to help comprehend text’, which was
listed in the strategy questionnaire participants had to fill in. Accompanying each text
are five multiple-choice questions, each with four distractors. Participants read all
three texts, and answered all fifteen multiple-choice questions accompanying them.
An item analysis (McNamara, 1996) was not conducted after the tests because
it is assumed that these students were already within the coverage level of the test,
since they were admitted to study in the college based on their previous performances
109
in the two examinations. This conclusion is also suggested by the readability test
results.
The reading comprehension passages were selected because they were found
to measure the participants’ ability to read English texts for main ideas, details,
inferences and other strategic processing necessary to enhance effective
comprehension. A multiple-choice test was preferred over other test formats because
of the popularity of the multiple-choice test format in the examination system of
Nigeria and because there is a ‘well-established procedure for analyzing multiplechoice’ test item results (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996). At all standardized
examinations in Nigeria, reading comprehension is measured through multiple-choice
tests. This is probably because it provides examiners with the room to examine a
broad content area, which may not be feasible with other methods. It also has the
benefit of limiting the possible answers to comprehension questions, thereby
controlling the ‘test-takers’ thinking process when they are responding to test task’
(Phakiti, 2003b: 659). The limited number of possible answers provided in a multiplechoice test therefore controls for subjectivity in examiners’ assessment of readers’
reading comprehension ability. I therefore consider the multiple-choice test an ideal
choice for the study reported here. Alderson (2000) observed that different techniques
for testing reading might permit the evaluation of different components of the reading
construct. Therefore, there is no one best format for testing reading. However, since in
every format, there exists some pros and cons, (ibid) the availability of ‘statistical
support for the analysis of multiple-choice tests and straightforward interpretation of
test analysis result’ (Phakiti, 2003b: 659), also constitutes a strong attraction for the
choice of the multiple-choice format of testing in the current study.
110
The word counts for each of the reading comprehension passages in the study
ranged between 284 and 352 words. Passage 1 contains 310 words, passage 2, 284
words while passage 3 352 words. The passages are provided in Appendix B.
3.4.1.2.
Oxford placement test
To measure the L2 proficiency of the participants, the grammar test of the Oxford
Placement Test (OPT) was used. The OPT has been found to provide a reliable and
efficient means of appropriately placing students, especially at the start of a course of
study. The calibration of the test, according to Allan (2004), follows the levels system
provided by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
All the participants took this test on the first day and the reading
comprehension test on the second day of the study. The mean score of the
participants’ performance in the OPT was 50.16, and their scores ranged from 15 to
82%. Based on the OPT scale, this result suggests that this group of English L2
learners consists of learners whose proficiency levels cut across the OPT proficiency
spectrum of proficient advanced user (3), upper intermediate user (7), lower
intermediate modest user (3), elementary limited user (4), basic extremely limited
user (2), and beginner user (8) participants.
3.4.1.3.
Vocabulary size test
In order to determine the vocabulary size of the participants, the vocabulary size test
(VST) by Nation and Beglar (2007) was used. The VST is a test of written receptive
vocabulary size, consisting of 14 frequency bands. The bands span the first to the 14th
1000 most frequent spoken word families in the British National Corpus (BNC). Each
111
1000 band is tested via multiple-choice question on 10 words randomly selected from
this band. The test has been found to be reliable and valid (Beglar, 2010).
Though other receptive vocabulary size measures, such as yes/no tests, have
also been found to be reliable and valid (Huibregtse, Admiral & Meara, 2002), the
fact that they are self-report questionnaires is a concern. It has been suggested that test
results between test-takers in such tests can be different due to test-takers’ ‘relative
judgment behaviour’, which can lead to test-takers’ over- or underestimation of their
vocabulary knowledge. Moreover, there is no agreed-upon penalization method for
wrong answers (Schmitt, 2010: 200).
Nation’s VST was used in the current study because it eliminates some of the
concerns mentioned above. The test design is such that ‘in order to answer the items,
the test-takers have to have a moderately developed idea of the meaning of the word’
(Nation & Beglar, 2007: 11). Moreover, Willis and Ohashi (2012) point out that
although the VST being a multiple-choice test may also suffer some degree of
inaccuracy errors, such error of inaccuracy may not be as severe as those posed by the
yes/no test.
The test used in the study included the first ten levels of the VST. The entire
fourteen levels were not used because a pilot study of the fourteen levels, which was
conducted with six teachers in the College, revealed that their average score on the
eleventh to fourteenth 1000 bands levels was less than 40%. Although the researcher
recognizes the importance of testing the participants on all the levels, recommended
by Nguyen and Nation (2011), the teachers’ performance in the pilot led the
researcher to conclude that administering the very infrequent levels on this category
of participants, might probably skew the data, thereby reducing the statistical power
112
of the data generated for the study (see Willis & Ohashi, 2012 for the same rationale).
Therefore, only the first ten levels of the VST were used for the study.
3.4.1.4.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategy questionnaire
A self-report Cognitive and metacognitive strategy (C&MS) questionnaire was used
to elicit responses on strategy use from the participants. The C&MS questionnaire
used for the study was adapted from Phakiti’s (2003) 5-point Likert scale
questionnaire; it requires participants to assess strategy use as 1 (never), 2
(sometimes), 3(often), 4 (usually) and 5 (always). The original questionnaire contains
35 items testing cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in reading.
Phakiti reported the results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) carried out
on the questionnaire items to identify group of variables that were homogeneous.
Several factor analyses were conducted on the cognitive and metacognitive strategy
items. The analysis accounting for 46.21% of the variance was considered to have
yielded the most appropriate factor loading resulting in the emergence of two factors.
Planning and monitoring strategies loaded on one factor, labeled MSs, while
comprehending strategies loaded on the second factor, labeled CSs. Based on this
dichotomy, items 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the 35-item strategy questionnaire were
shortlisted as items relating to CS use and items 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 24, 30, 31, 32, and
33 were also shortlisted as relating to MS use in the study. In all, a total of 15 items
were shortlisted from the 35 items, and it was these 15 items that constituted the
strategy questionnaire used to conduct the current study. However, only 14 were used
in the analysis. Item 33, ‘I determined how to solve the test’, was excluded because
over 90% of the participants in a norming exercise conducted on the questionnaire
113
reported that they were unable to understand this statement. Apart from changing the
name ‘Thai’ to ‘Igbo’ in item 2, there was no other change made on the items.
Results
3.5.
The first research question of the study asks which RCSs Igbo ESL learners deploy
when reading English texts. In order to answer this question, the mean rating on all
strategy items reported by the participants was calculated. Tables 1 and 2 present
descriptive statistics of the learners’ reported rating for the cognitive- and
metacognitive-strategy questionnaire items, respectively. To arrive at an average
rating for the items, individual participants’ ratings for each item on the questionnaire
across the three passages read were added up and divided by three, and then by the
number of respondents. Analyzing Likert scale data in this manner has often been
criticized, the rationale being that since Likert scale data are ordinal data, they should
not be analyzed like interval data (see Kuzon et al. 1996; Jamieson 2004 for more
details). However, Carifio and Perla (2008), and Norman (2010) consider the
concerns as unwarranted, arguing that such reasoning ignores the fact that summing
across items reduces the ordinal data to an interval data. For example, Norman (2010:
5) claims that summing Likert scales across items is analogous to the accepted
‘practice of treating the sum of correct answers on a multiple choice test, each of
which is binary, as an interval scale’.
Table 1: Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for the item-level cognitive
strategy use across the three reading comprehension passages
Cognitive item
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
114
1. I translated the reading text and tasks into
Igbo to enhance my understanding.
1.96
1.136
1.197
.860
3.04
1.207
-.082
-.712
2.64
1.680
1.483
2.961
3.60
1.258
-.382
-1.066
3.20
1.041
-.675
-.215
2. I tried to understand the text and questions
regardless of my vocabulary knowledge.
3. I tried to find topics and main ideas of the
passage without reading it in detail.
4. I read the text and questions several times
to better understand them.
5. I used my prior knowledge to help
understand the text.
Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for item-level
metacognitive strategy use across the three reading comprehension passages
Metacognitive item
Mean
SD
Skewness Kurtosis
3.56
1.227
-.224
-1.011
2.96
1.274
.081
-1.156
2.96
1.306
.080
-.893
2.80
.913
-.286
-.616
action.
2.28
1.061
1.202
1.838
11. I tried to understand the questions
3.79
1.179
-.776
-.209
6. I was aware of what and how I was doing in
the test.
7. I checked my answers as I progress in the
test.
8. I corrected mistakes immediately when
found.
9. I determined what the test questions require
me to do.
10. I was aware of the need to plan a course of
115
adequately before attempting to answer.
12. I was away of selected strategies to help me
complete the test questions before solving
them.
2.91
1.109
-.267
-.537
2.55
1.143
.403
.300
3.41
1.260
-.561
-.712
13. I checked my accuracy as I progressed
through the test.
14. I identified relevant information in the text
to help me understand the text and answer the
questions.
To determine the specific cognitive and metacognitive strategy items
significantly used by the participants during the English reading task, a cut-off point
of .8 for equal intervals between the 5 levels in the Likert scale was set, following
Akkakoson (2013). This cut-off point was used to enable the researcher to decide
which items were highly scored by the students in the strategy questionnaires.
Therefore it was decided that:
6. A mean score of 1.00 – 1.80 would indicate that the students never use a
particular strategy (the lowest level).
7. A mean score of 1.81 – 2.60 would indicate that the students sometimes use a
particular strategy (the low usage level).
8. A mean score of 2.61 – 3.40 would indicate that the students often use a
particular strategy (the medium-usage level).
9. A mean score of 3.41 – 4.20 would indicate that the students usually use a
particular strategy (the high-usage level).
116
10. A mean score of 4.21 – 5.00 would indicate that the students use a particular
strategy always whenever they read (the highest level).
Questionnaire items whose scores fall within levels 1 and 2, are not reported
because they are of low usage, and therefore were not considered to be of any
significance in the strategy repertoire of these L2 readers. Details of the distribution
of cognitive and metacognitive strategy items that received average ratings above 2
are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Distribution of highly scored cognitive and metacognitive strategy items
Cognitive item
Rating
Metacognitive item
Rating
2
Medium usage
6
High usage
3
Medium usage
7
Medium usage
4
High usage
8
Medium usage
5
Medium usage
9
Medium usage
11
High usage
12
Medium usage
14
High usage
Table 3 shows that the participants in general used, within the medium and high usage
levels, 11 out of the 14 strategy items during reading comprehension tests in English.
The distribution of C&MS use items presented in Table 3 shows that this group of
Igbo ESL readers used cognitive strategy items 2, 3, 4, and 5, and metacognitive
strategy items 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 within the medium and high usage ranges
during the English reading comprehension task. In response to the first research
question, these strategies could therefore be considered as the cognitive and
117
metacognitive strategies largely used by these readers when they read the English
texts. However, participants did not largely use strategy items 1, 10, and 13, and no
strategy items were reported used at the highest usage level during the reading task.
Therefore 50% of the reported strategy use for this group of Igbo ESL readers is at the
medium usage level, 29% at the high usage level, while 21% was at the low and
lowest usage levels.
The contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to English
reading scores is the focus of research question 2. To answer this research question, a
multiple regression was conducted to see if the reported levels of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use predicted the reading comprehension scores of this group
of Igbo ESL readers. Reading comprehension scores was the outcome variable (see
Table 4 for the descriptive statistics of the reading scores), while the overall cognitive
and metacognitive strategies used by students when reading the texts (calculated as
the reported overall average ratings of all cognitive strategy items, and metacognitive
strategy items) were the predictor variables. Table 4 also presents the descriptive
statistics of the overall cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, while item-level
descriptive statistics of each of the 5 CS items, and 9 MS items are presented in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 4: Mean, median, mode, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis of the
reading comprehension scores, CSU, MSU, VST, and OPT
Mean
Median
Mode
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
comprehension
35.00
33.00
27
12.53
.101
-.160
Cognitive strategies
2.89
3.00
2.6
.63
-.066
-.651
Reading
118
Metacognitive
strategies
2.91
2.90
3.0
.58
.271
.151
Vocabulary size test
5360
5600
5300
1456
-1.698
.106
Oxford placement test
50.16
52
16
19.54
-0.51
-0.743
Before conducting the multiple regression, the data was tested for all the assumptions
of multiple regression. First, the presence of outliers in the data was checked through
the analysis of standard residuals, which showed absence of outliers (Std. Residual
Min. = -1.727, Std. Residual Max. = 2.055) in the data. The test for the assumption of
collinearity also indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (CS, VIF = 1.005;
MS, VIF = 1.005). The data also met the assumption of independent errors (DurbinWatson value = 1.226), while the histogram of the standardized residuals indicated
that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors, as suggested by the
P-P plot of standardized residuals. The scatterplot of the standardized residuals
indicated that the data met the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity.
In the multiple regression analyses, which tested research question 2,
hierarchical method was used to enter predictors into the regression model. However,
irrespective of whether MS or CS was entered first, results suggested that cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use did not explain a significant amount of the variance in
the reading comprehension scores of Igbo ESL readers (F (2, 22) = 1.55, p > .05, R2 =
.12, R2 Adjusted = .04). The analysis further shows that although CSU and MSU
could not explain any significant proportion of the variance associated with English
reading comprehension scores as indicated by the non-significant values of the
standardized regression coefficient (CSU, β = .35, t (24) = 1.76, p = .092, and MSU, β
= -.034, t (24) = -.17, p = .87), the contribution of CSU to the reading comprehension
119
of these readers was approaching a statistically significant level. The result tends to
indicate that performance in reading comprehension for this group of ESL readers
could be a function of CSU, and not MSU.
The third research question, which examined the role of vocabulary size and
L2 proficiency in C&MS use during reading comprehension by Igbo ESL readers,
was tested using multiple regression analysis, and paired-samples t-test. Multiple
regression analyses were conducted with CSU and MSU as different dependent
variables, while vocabulary size, and L2 proficiency levels were the predictor
variables in the regression models. (The descriptive statistics for the VST and OPT
are presented in Table 4 above.)
To ensure that the data were suitable for conducting multiple regression,
screening for outliers was conducted using the analysis of standard residuals. The
analysis of standard residuals of the data for the regression model for CSU reveals
that the data contained no outliers (Std. Residual Min. = -1.94, Std. Residual Max. =
.975); that of the regression model for MSU also showed the absence of outliers (Std.
Residual Min. = -2.08, Std. Residual Max. = 1.96). The result of the test for the
assumption of low collinearity in the data for the regression model for CSU and MSU
indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern (VST Scores, VIF = 1.65, and OPT
Scores, VIF = 1.65) when either MSU or CSU was the outcome variable. The data
also met the assumption of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 1.83 and 2.53
for CSU and MSU, respectively). The histogram of the standardized residuals, for the
conditions in the regression models (CSU and MSU) indicated that the data contained
approximately normally distributed errors, as indicated by the normal P-P plot of
standardized residuals. Also, the scatterplots of the standardized residuals indicated
that the data met the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity.
120
The question about the role of vocabulary size and L2 proficiency in cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use during reading comprehension was answered by first
conducting two multiple regression analyses, using the forced entry method, one with
CSU and the other with MSU as the outcome variable; in both analyses VST scores
and OPT scores were the predictor variables. The analyses showed that vocabulary
size and L2 proficiency did not explain a significant proportion of the variance in the
CS and MS use of the Igbo ESL readers (F (2, 22) = .906, p = .419, R2 = .28, and F
(2, 22) = 1.205, p = .319, R2 = .31) respectively. The results suggest that the readers’
vocabulary size, and proficiency levels in English had no significant effects on
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during reading comprehension in the L2,
and could therefore be assumed that they made no significant contribution in C&MS
use among these ESL readers.
However, to ensure that this finding is not an artefact of the aggregation of
scores, which has ‘a potential to alter the findings’ (Phakiti 2003b: 672), pairedsamples t-tests were conducted. These tests compared the role of vocabulary size and
L2 proficiency on cognitive and metacognitive strategy use of readers with high and
low VST and OPT scores. Median split was used to create two groups of high and low
performers on the VST and OPT. Paired-samples t-tests were then used to compare
the means of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by high and low performing
ESL readers in relation to their performance on each of the two tests. Data in all
conditions were normally distributed. Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the
cognitive and metacognitive strategies data for the sets of groupings based on the
readers’ performance on the two tests.
121
Table 5: Mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use by readers with low and high VST & OPT scores
Group
Mean
SD
Skewness Kurtosis
Cognitive strategy use for low VST
2.52
.573
.199
-1.152
Cognitive strategy use for high VST
3.25
.483
.252
-.947
Metacognitive strategy use for low VST
2.90
.772
.281
-.716
Metacognitive strategy use for high VST
2.91
.362
.002
.124
Cognitive strategy use for low OPT
2.83
.584
.065
-1.235
Cognitive strategy use for high OPT
2.93
.715
-.160
-.396
Metacognitive strategy use for low OPT
2.84
.526
.142
.123
Metacognitive strategy use for high OPT
2.97
.665
.226
.196
Table 6 presents the result of the paired-samples t-tests. The t-test results indicate that
CSs used by readers with low vocabulary size, and CSs used by students with high
vocabulary size were the only pairs in the matrix that yielded a significant t-value. We
could interpret this outcome as suggesting that high vocabulary size led to the use of
significantly more CSs in reading L2 texts, while low vocabulary size significantly
resulted in less use of CSs by the readers during L2 reading. However, there was no
significant effect of L2 proficiency, as measured by the OPT, on the use of cognitive
and metacognitive strategies for the low and high proficient Igbo ESL readers in the
study.
122
Table 6: Paired samples t-test results for cognitive and metacognitive strategy use by
groups with high and low VST scores (VSTs), and OPT scores (OPTs).
Group
Mean t-value
Cognitive strategy use by readers with low VSTs
2.52
Vs.
Cognitive strategy use by readers with high VSTs
3.25
Metacognitive strategy use by readers with low VSTs
2.90
Vs.
df
Sig.
-3.344
11
.007
-.029
11
.977
-.336
11
.743
-.525
11
.610
Metacognitive strategy use by readers with high VSTs 2.91
Cognitive strategy use by readers with low OPTs
2.83
Vs.
Cognitive strategy use by readers with high OPTs
2.93
Metacognitive strategy use by readers with low OPTs
2.84
Vs.
Metacognitive strategy use by readers with high OPTs 2.97
3.6.
Discussion
With regards to the first research question, the result of the analysis presented in
Table 3 indicates that out of the five cognitive, and nine metacognitive items listed in
the questionnaire, the participants rated the usage for cognitive items 2, 3, 4, and 5,
and metacognitive items 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, & 14 to be of medium and high levels. The
usage of cognitive items 1, 10, and 13 was however rated as low. The low rated use of
cognitive item 1, ‘I translated the reading text and tasks into Igbo to enhance my
understanding’, is curious given that studies have shown translation to be a common
RCS among L2 readers (e.g. Kern, 1994; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001). In fact,
123
translating from L2 to L1 during reading tasks has been found to be a strategic
behaviour that L2 readers often employ to enhance comprehension when they
encounter comprehension challenges in L2 reading. Upton and Lee-Thompson (2001:
487) reported that ‘L2 readers most frequently shifted into their L1 simply to translate
a word or phrase meaning or to confirm their understanding of a sentence they had
read’. However, this could just be true of situations where the readers have reasonable
levels of academic competence in the L1. In the presented study, most Igbo speakers
appear to be much more at home with speaking and reading in English than in Igbo.
For instance, the participants were offered the option to respond to the strategy
questionnaire in Igbo and English, but none accepted to respond in Igbo. In fact, there
is an apparent low usage of Igbo among the speakers, as suggested by the fact that 18
of the 27 participants indicated that their initial experience with L1 literacy was as
teenagers. This is attributable to the social and linguistic dominance of English in
Igbo society (see Mustapha, 2014; Christopher, 2014). This situation probably could
explain why Igbo ESL readers are unlikely to translate from English to Igbo to
enhance reading comprehension in English. This study therefore argues that use of
translation strategy by ESL readers may hold true only when the L2 does not occupy a
dominant position in the sociolinguistic and economic life of the ESL reader. The use
of this strategy could therefore be context dependent.
The participants also rated their use of two metacognitive strategy items as
low: ‘I was aware of the need to plan a course of action’ and ‘I checked my accuracy
as I progressed through the test’. Metacognitive strategies are advanced reading
strategies that are often associated with skilled readers, and the awareness and use of
these strategies are hallmarks of good reading ability (Rasekh & Ranjbary, 2003;
Zhang et al., 2008; Zhang & Wu, 2009). The effective use of planning (item 10) and
124
monitoring (item 13) strategies has been found to correlate with higher achievement
in English reading (see Anderson, 1991; Block, 1992; Zhang, 2002; Zhang & Wu,
2009).
It is therefore arguable that poor use of RCSs, particularly the metacognitive
strategies of planning and monitoring could have been responsible for why the
participants performed poorly in the reading task (M = 35, SD = 12.53). The inability
to monitor comprehension during reading, researchers argue, ‘can result in
unsuccessful comprehension’ (Morrison, 2004: 83). Apparently, this could be the case
with this group of ESL readers as indicated by their reported rated use of the planning
and monitoring strategies during the reading task. The process of monitoring the
cognitive process (Baker & Brown, 1884) refers to the ability of readers to be
conscious of the extent to which comprehension is taking place during a reading task
(Morrison, 2004). Studies that investigated the effect of comprehension monitoring in
reading comprehension achievement found it to be vital in reading comprehension
and related to reading proficiency (Baker, 1989; Block, 1992; Morrison, 2004; Yang,
2002). The low usage of these metacognitive strategies during the reading task also
suggests ineffective use of other strategies too. Metacognitive strategies perform
executive functions of overseeing the application of cognitive strategies (Oxford,
2011; Phakiti, 2006). It has been suggested that the effective use of RCSs relies
heavily on the readers’ comprehension monitoring (metacognitive ability) ability
(Kimmel & MacGinite, 1984). Further analysis of the rating for strategy use reported
by the readers provides more support to the possibility that low performance at the
reading comprehension task could truly be a function of inefficient use of reading
strategies. For example, 50% of the reported strategy use for this group of Igbo ESL
readers is at the medium usage level, 29% at the high usage level, while 21% was at
125
the low and lowest usage levels, which tends to suggest that these readers,
strategically speaking are mediocre.
Therefore, it could rightly be assumed that the application of strategies
affected the readers’ performance at the reading test. According to Cohen (1986: 133)
‘…strategies may contribute to successful comprehension or detract from it’. In fact,
their contribution depends on how they are effectively or ineffectively used by the
reader. This group of Igbo ESL readers appears not to have effectively deployed their
RSs during the reading task, and as a result they were ineffective leading to poor
performance. Anderson (1991) is of the opinion that it is not enough to know what
strategies to use, what is of great importance is how to use them. In reading strategies
research, quantity and quality of use have been suggested to be necessary for RCSs to
significantly contribute to reading comprehension performance (Noli & Sabariah,
2011; Nordin et al., 2013). Therefore this study tends to provide an indirect
corroboration for the assumption that the way RCSs are used could determine the
level of reading comprehension achieved.
The regression analyses conducted in respect of the second research question
for the study further confirms the assumption that RCS use could only affect reading
comprehension when used properly. The second research question for the study
concerns how RCSs used during the reading tasks contributed to the reading
comprehension performance of the participants. The results of the regression analyses
suggest that the use of CSs and MSs did not significantly contribute to the reading
comprehension of the participants, which is in contrast to the findings of several
previous studies (e.g. Guo & Roehrig, 2011; Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b;
Shoerey & Mokhtari, 2001; Yau, 2009). This finding can be explained if it is assumed
that the RCSs were ineffectively employed during the reading task. This assumption
126
is suggested by the fact that the readers rating of the use of these strategies tended to
indicate that CSs were used more than MSs (although not significantly), even when
more metacognitive items (9 against 5 cognitive items) were listed on the
questionnaire. The rating for the use of MS reported by these participants therefore
does not suggest that the readers possess the prerequisite metacognitive skills required
to facilitate reading comprehension. It could be assumed that it was as a consequence
that RCSs used by this group of students during the reading tasks could not contribute
significantly to their reading comprehension. MS use is considered to be a function of
skilled readership (Rasekh & Ranjbary, 2003; Zhang et al. 2008; Zhang & Wu 2009).
However, the rating of metacognitive strategy use by the participants in the current
study does not seem to indicate skilled readership.
The relative effect of the participants’ vocabulary size, and L2 proficiency on
the use of CSs and MSs was investigated in research question 3. To the best of the
knowledge of the researcher, the current study is probably the second attempt at
exploring how the two relate to the use of RCSs during reading comprehension.
Multiple regression analysis and paired-samples t-tests were used for the
investigation. The results of the regression analyses suggest that the two predictor
variables; VST scores, and the participants’ scores on the grammar section of the OPT
could not explain a significant proportion of the variance in CSU and MSU (F (2, 22)
= .906, p = .419, R2 = .28, and F (2, 22) = 1.205, p = .319, R2 = .31), respectively. The
finding tends to suggest that some other variables, outside the duo, are responsible for
the way these readers used their RCSs. Strangely, even L2 proficiency could not
explain a significant proportion of the variance in CSU and MSU, contrary to the
findings of several previous studies on L2 reading comprehension (see Ghafournia &
Afghari, 2013; Phakiti, 2003b; Zhang & Wu, 2009).
127
Although few other studies (e.g. Rahimi et al., 2009; Sarig 1987), also found
no relationship between strategy use and proficiency, further analysis was conducted
to ensure that this conclusion is accurate for this group of students. Because it is
probable that the finding could just be an artefact of the aggregation of scores in the
analysis, the researcher decided to control for the effect of aggregation on the data by
grouping the participants into two groups of low and high proficiency and vocabulary
size participants. Then the means of CSU and MSU for the groups of high and low
achievers on each test were compared using paired-samples t-tests, since limited
sample size could not allow for regression analyses to be conducted at this juncture.
The only significant effect found was that of vocabulary size on the CS use.
Participants with high vocabulary size reported using significantly more CSs during
the reading tasks than those with low vocabulary size.
Vocabulary size has been associated with increase in the frequency of
strategies used by reader (Brisbois, 1995; Cromley & Azevedo, 2007; Nassaji, 2004),
which tends to be supported by the finding in the current study. In a related EFL
study, Al-Nujaidi (2003) also reported that participants with larger vocabulary size
reported using reading strategies more frequently than their counterparts with low
vocabulary size. Chou (2013: 187) cited ‘dictionary consultation, note taking of new
and unfamiliar words, frequent return to the passages, and translation into the L1’ as
cognitive strategies that readers often used due to the presence of unfamiliar words in
the text. Although vocabulary size was not measured in the study, it is probably
plausible to assume that unfamiliar words elicited the use of more cognitive strategies,
as was reported, probably for readers with high vocabulary size than for those with
low vocabulary size, given the relationship between the use of certain cognitive
strategies and vocabulary size. For example, researchers (e.g., Calvo, 2005; Nassaji,
128
2004; Oakhill et al., 2015) suggest that vocabulary knowledge is related to the use of
cognitive strategy of inferencing, while others (e.g. Fisher & Frey, 2009) suggest that
the use of background knowledge as a cognitive strategy to aid comprehension is
related to vocabulary knowledge. The current study contributes to the literature on the
relationship between vocabulary and RCS use, showing that vocabulary size is
particularly important for CSU.
For example, participants with high vocabulary size in the current study
reported significantly higher use of the five cognitive strategies listed in the
questionnaire. As in previous studies, the study found that high vocabulary size
readers also reported significant use of inferencing strategy, as well as the strategy of
using background knowledge to aid comprehension. This is in addition to the higher
use of the strategy of rereading and using topics and main ideas in a text to arrive at
meaning construction. It may not be exactly clear why readers with high vocabulary
size in the study tended to use more cognitive strategies than those with low
vocabulary size. Chou (2013) suggests that the use of some cognitive strategies by L2
readers is an indication of the presence of unfamiliar words in the text, which
however does not explain why readers with high vocabulary size readers would use
more CSs. Another way of explaining this behaviour could be that CSs are knowledge
based, and they rely heavily on the linguistic competence of the reader (Phakiti,
2003). Therefore possessing large vocabulary size, which could be deemed an
indication of some degree of linguistic competence, would suggest potential to
employ more cognitive strategies when faced with comprehension challenges. This is
probably why readers with high vocabulary size reported using cognitive strategies
more than readers with low vocabulary size.
129
Therefore, this study has added to the few studies that found no relationship
between RCS use and L2 proficiency. Some of these studies have been criticized
based on methodological considerations. For instance, Sarig’s (1987) study has been
criticized for providing ‘vague methodological explanations’, which Morrison (2004:
82) argues make it difficult to truly evaluate the findings. The fact that the participants
in Sarig (1987) appear to have read different texts has also been criticised. However,
the current study appears not to suffer from some of these concerns given that the
participants in this study read the same texts, and their L2 proficiency was measured
and used for the analyses. Also, unlike in Sarig’s study, strategy use was elicited
through a self-report questionnaire. Given that the various measures employed in the
current study tend to provide an equal evaluation of the constructs of interest, the
researcher therefore would wish to assume that these findings are probably true
accounts of the cognitive processing abilities of this group of Igbo ESL students.
3.7.
Conclusion
The findings of this study have implications for reading strategy researchers, ESL
teachers, as well as ESL readers, given the dearth of research on the relationship
between vocabulary knowledge and reading strategy use. For reading strategies
researchers, the result obtained in this study suggests that vocabulary could probably
play a unique role in RCS use. Further studies are therefore required to determine how
this happens and the extent to which strategy use is dependent on the knowledge of
vocabulary. The study also has implication for the teaching and learning of English in
ESL classes, with regards to reading strategy instruction. So, while efforts are focused
on providing instructions on reading strategy use, improving the students’ vocabulary
knowledge should be considered a necessary component in the process. Improved
130
vocabulary size could be a recipe for increased strategy use, which could lead to
increased reading comprehension among ESL readers.
Finally, this study has also shown that RCS use may not significantly
contribute to reading comprehension always, and readers of different proficiency
levels may not differ in the use of RCSs. Within reading strategy research, there is an
established notion that the effectiveness of RCS use depends on the efficiency at
which the reader uses them. But the finding, which suggests that proficiency plays no
role in RCS use, was inconsistent with those of previous studies. The implication of
these findings is that researchers may have to take another look at RCS use by
examining how varying sociocultural contexts could relate to RCS use.
131
References
3.8.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between
reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher , 61 (5), 364-373.
Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student
learning of L2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal
of Research in Reading , 36 (4), 422-450.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Alderson, J. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language
problem? (J. Alderson, & A. Urquhart, Eds.) Reading in a Foreign Language ,
pp. 1-24.
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 2: Test Pack. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Al-Nujaidi, A. H. (2003). The relationship between vocabulary size, reading
strategies, and reading comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. UMI
Dissertations (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis) Oklahoma State University .
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language
reading and testing. Modern Language Journal , 75 (4), 460-472.
Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 strategy research. (E. Hinkel, Ed.) Handbook of Research
in Language Teaching and Learning , pp. 757-772.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, Comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader.
Educational Psychology Review , 1 (1), 3-38.
132
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. (P. D. Pearson,
Ed.) Handbook of Reading Research , 1, pp. 353-394.
Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the vocabulary size test. Language
Testing , 27 (1), 101-118.
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 25, 133-150.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2
readers. TESOL Quarterly , 26 (2), 319-343.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL
Quarterly , 20 (3), 463-494.
Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connection between first and second language reading. Journal
of literacy research , 27 (4), 565-584.
Calvo, M. (2005). Relative contribution of vocabulary knowledge and working
memory span to elaborative inferences in reading. Learning and Individual
Differences , 15 (1), 53-65.
Carifio, L., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50 year debate around using and
misusing Likert scales. Medical Education , 42 (12), 1150-1152.
Chavez, M. T. (1994). English native speakers reading German: Syntactic versus
semantic problems and strategic behaviour. IRAL , 32 (4), 321-333.
Chen, M. H., Gualberto, P. J., & Tameta, C. L. (2009). The development of
Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. TESOL Journal , 1, 43-57.
Chou, M.-h. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific
academic purposes in testing and nontesting contexts. Reading Research
Quarterly , 48 (2), 175-197.
133
Christopher, N. M. (2014). Linguistic diversity, code-switching and language shift in
Nigeria. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social
Sciences , 7 (3), 381-393.
Cohen, A. (1986). Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent
findings. English for Specific Purposes , 5 (2), 131-145.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential
mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology , 99 (2), 311-325.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive
scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System , 42, 462-473.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2009). Background Knowledge: The missing piece of the
comprehension puzzle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The Cognitive Psychology
of Schooling Learning. New York: Harper Collins.
Ghafournia, N., & Afghari, A. (2013). Relationship between reading proficiency,
strategic competence, and reading comprehension test performance: A study
of Iranian EFL learners. International Educational Studies , 6 (8), 21-30.
Guo, Y., & Roehrig, A. D. (2011). Roles of general versus second language (L2)
knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Lnaguage , 23
(1), 42-64.
Huibregtse, I., Admiral, W., & Meara, P. (2002). Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test:
Correction for guessing and response style. Language Testing , 19 (3), 227245.
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education , 38 (12),
1217-1218.
134
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition , 16 (4), 441-461.
Kim, J., & Cho, Y. (2015). Proficiency effects on relative roles of vocabulary and
grammar knowledge in second language reading. English Teaching , 70 (1),
75-96.
Kimmel, S., & MacGinite, W. H. (1984). Identifying children who use a perseverative
text processing strategy. Reading Research Quarterly , 19 (2), 162-172.
Koda, K. (1989). Effect of L1 orthographic representation on L2 phonological coding
strategies. Journal of Psychological Research , 18 (2), 201-222.
Kuzon, W. M., Urbanchek, M. G., & McCabe, S. (1996). The seven deadly sins of
statistical analysis. Annals of Plastic Surgery , 37 (3), 265-272.
Lubliner, S., & Smetana, L. (2005). The effect of comprehensive vocabulary
instruction on Title 1 students' metacognitive word-learning skills and reading
comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research , 37 (2), 163-200.
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London and New
York: Longman.
McNeil, L. (2012). Extending the compensatory model of second language reading.
System , 40 (1), 64-76.
McNeil, L. (2011). Investigating the contributions of background knowledge and
reading comprehension strategies to L2 reading comprehension: An
explanatory study. Read Writ , 24 (8), 883-902.
Milton, J. (2013). Measuring the contribution of vocabulary knowledge to proficiency
in the four skills. In C. Baadel, C. Lindquist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2
Vocabulary Acquisition, Knowledge and Use: New Perspectives on
135
Assessment and Corpus Analysis (pp. 57-78). EUROSLA Monographs Series
2.
Morrison, L. (2004). Comprehension monitoring in first and second language reading.
The Canadian Modern Language Review , 61 (1), 77-106.
Mustapha, A. S. (2014). Linguistic hegemony of the English language in Nigeria.
Ikala, revista de lenguaje y cultura , 19 (1), 83-97.
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2
learners inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian modern language
review , 61 (1), 107-134.
Nation, P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher , 31
(7), 9-13.
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP
learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12 (1), 1-9.
Nguyen, L. T., & Nation, I. S. (2011). A bilingual vocabulary size test of English for
Vietnamese learners. RELC Journal , 18 (1), 86-99.
Noli, M. N., & Sabariah, M. R. (2011). Reading strategies of English as a second
language (ESL) high and low achievers. English Language Journal , 4, 49-66.
Nordin, N. M., Rashid, S., Zubir, S., & Sadjirin, R. (2013). Differences in reading
strategies: How ESL learners really read. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences , 90, 468-477.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics.
Advanced Health Science Education Theory Practice , 15 (5), 626-632.
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & McCarthy, D. (2015). Inference processing in children: The
contributions of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. In E. J. O'Brien,
136
A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch, Jr. (Eds.), Inferences During Reading (pp. 140159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, M. J., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching: Language learning strategies. Harlow,
UK: Pearson Education.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language
Learning , 53 (4), 649-702.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing ,
20 (1), 26-56.
Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their
relationship to EFL reading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language
Testing , 1, 53-95.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rahimi, M., Sadighi, F., & Dastkhezr, Z. A. (2009). Do L2 proficiency and L1
reading strategies affect persian EFL learners' use of English reading
strategies? Threshold hypothesis revisited. The Journal of Asia TEFL , 6 (3),
177-200.
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary
learning. TESL-EJ , 7 (2 (A-5)), 1-15.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2
reading. Reading in a Foreign Language , 14 (1), 1-15.
137
Sarig. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some
comparative process data. (J. Devine, P. L. Carrel, & D. E. Eskey, Eds.)
Research in reading in English as a second language , pp. 105-120.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System , 29 (4), 431449.
Strother, J., & Ulijin, J. (1987). Does syntactic rewriting affect English for science
and technology text comprehension? Research in Reading in English as a
second language , pp. 89-101.
Ulijin, J., & Strother, J. (1990). The effect of syntactic simplification on reading EST
texts as L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading , 13, 38-54.
Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second
language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 23 (4), 469-495.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary
knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review , 53 (1),
13-40.
Willis, M., & Ohashi, Y. (2012). A model of L2 vocabulary learning and retention.
The Language Learning Journal , 40 (1), 125-137.
Yang, Y. (2002). Reassessing readers' comprehension monitoring. Reading in a
foreign language , 14 (1), 18-42.
Yau, J.-l. C. (2009). Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents:
Knowledge and application of strategic reading. Metacognition Learning , 4
(3), 217-235.
138
Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading
comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language
Journal , 96 (4), 558-575.
Zhang, L. J. (2002). Exploring EFL reading as a metacognitive experience: Reader
awareness and reading performance. Asian Journal of English Language
Teaching , 12, 69-94.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students'
metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign
Language , 21 (1), 37-59.
Zhang, L. J., Gu, Y. P., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean
bilingual children's use of reading strategies in learning to read in English.
British Journal of Educational Psychology , 78 (2), 245-271.
139
Appendix A: Biodata questionnaire
About the Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to elicit some background information about you.
Please rest assured that all information provided will be kept confidential.
Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions in this
questionnaire, so feel free to provide the answers that you deem right.
Questionnaire
Please take some time and respond to all the questions in this questionnaire. Please
ask me for clarification if a question is unclear.
Tick as appropriate, please. You are also free to tick as many answers as you think
appropriate to each question.
2. Which is your native language?
Igbo
Hausa
☐
Yoruba
☐
English
☐
☐
None
☐
2.Which other language(s) do you speak?
Hausa
☐
Yoruba
English
☐
☐
Others ______________________________(Please name the languages)
3. At which age did you start learning English? ______________________________
4. Please rate your Reading Ability in the English Language using the scale below:
No ability (0)
☐
☐☐ ☐
☐
Low (1)
Fairly low (2)
Fairly high (3)
High (4)
V. High (5)
☐
5. Which language(s) do you speak at home? ________________(Please name the languages)
6. In which of these other languages can you read?
Hausa
☐
Yoruba
English
☐☐
Others -----------------------------------------(Please name the languages)
Participant Information
What is your Registration Number? __________________________________
What is your subject combination or name of your degree? ____________________
140
What is your class level or year of study? ________________________________
How old are you?
__________________________________
Do you have any hearing problem?
Yes
☐
No
If YES please say the nature of the hearing problem___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Do you have any problem with your vision?
No
Yes
If YES please say the nature of the vision problem you have ____________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Do you have any problem with reading texts?
Yes
☐
No
☐
If YES please say the nature of the problem _________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Please indicate your gender
Male
Female
Please write your phone number. I would like to contact you to ask for more
information, if necessary.
__________________________________
Thank you for participating in my study!
141
Appendix B: Reading comprehension test
General Instructions
Before you start the test please write your registration in the space provided on the
answer sheet.
Read the passages carefully and then answer the questions below each passage by
choosing a, b, c, or d from the options provided. Only one answer is correct in the
options provided for each question. Each question carries 1 mark.
There are three passages, and you are to answer all the questions on each passage.
After reading and answering questions on a passage, you must immediately answer
the questionnaire regarding your thinking as you were reading and trying to answer
questions on it. This means that you are to answer three questionnaires, one for each
of the passages read.
Note also that any form of cheating will not be tolerated because it will affect the
research findings.
Passage I: Youth and Old-Age
Young men have strong passions and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the
bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show
absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are
violent while they last, but quickly over: their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted
and are like sick people’s attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered and
quick-tempered, and apt to give way to their anger, bad tempter often gets the better
of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are
indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they
love victory still more, for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is
one form of this. They love both more than they love money, which indeed they love
very little, not having yet learnt what it means to be without it. They look at the good
side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness.
They trust others readily, because they have not yet been cheated. They are sanguine;
nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine; and besides that, they have
as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but
in expectation, for youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it: on the
first day of one’s life one has nothing at all to remember, and can only look forward.
They are easily cheated owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned. Their hot
tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the
hot temper prevents fear, and the hopeful disposition creates confidence; we cannot
feel fear so long as we are feeling angry, and any expectation of good makes us
confident.
Aristotle’s Youth and Old-Age
p.197
142
1. According to the passage, young men are
a)
b)
c)
d)
Violent when they have sexual desires
Hot-tempered when they are hungry or thirsty
Indignant and fickle in satisfying their sexual desires
Active and restive until they satisfy their desires
2. The analogy between young men and sick people is that:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Their emotions are active but short-lived
They are easily controlled by hunger and thirst
They are easily swayed by emotions
They are apt to give way to anger.
3. The writer says that young people are optimistic in their dealings with people
because they are:
a) Steadfast
b) Reckless
c) Discreet
d) Courageous
4. The statement ‘nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine’ as
used in the text, means:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Respond with suspicion and alertness
Act with considerable confidence and trust
Behave shamelessly like a drunkard
Move with care and self-control
5. The expression, ‘not in memory but in expectation’, as used in the passage,
implies:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Past, not present
Future, not present
Innocence, not experience
Hopelessness, not hopefulness
Passage II: Gun Violence
Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang!’ Now, they aim real guns
and shoot one another. Firearms killed nearly 4,200 teenagers in 1990. Only motor
vehicle accidents kill more teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising.
The chance that a gun will kill a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 has almost
tripled since 1985 and almost doubled for white males, according to the National
Centre for Health Statistics.
Who could disagree with Health and Human Services Secretary, Donna Shalala, when
she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable?’ In the shameful light of
this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms. Shalala’ words, an often asked question seems
urgently due to be raised again: Would less violence on television – the surrounding
143
environment for most children and young adults – make violence in actual life has
normal, less accepted, less horrifying?
It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasized
violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the
premise of education is granted – that good models can influence the young – then it
follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effect. This is the reasonable
hypothesis held by 80 percent of the respondents to a recent Times Mirror poll who
think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to society.
Witness enough mimed shootouts, see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen, and the
taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot
be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed
sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?
From: The Christian Science Monitor, April 16-22, 1993, p 20, CSPS, Boston, M.A, USA
6. From the passage, it can be inferred that since 1985
a) More black males between the ages of 15 and 19 have been killing one
another with guns
b) More white than black males have been getting killed by guns
c) More black males between the ages of 15 and 19 have been getting killed
by guns
d) More black than white males have been killing one another with guns
7. The writer says ‘the firearms figures are rising’ because.
a) More teenagers are now getting killed by firearms than by motor vehicle
accidents
b) More teenagers are now getting killed by firearms than used to be the case
c) More teenagers now carry firearms than used to be the case
d) Firearms now have figures that are terribly high.
8. The writer uses ‘numbed sensitivity’ to refer to
a)
b)
c)
d)
Heartlessness on the part of actors
Objectionable behavior
Deadening of the capacity to feel
Unreasonable violence
9. In Secretary Donna Shalala’s view, the situation depicted by the statistics is
a)
b)
c)
d)
Alarming and unbearable
Topical and intimidating
Tense and reassuring
Disturbing and conducive
10. What will actually be proved ‘if the premise of education is granted’?
a) Entertainment on television is harmful to society
b) Good models can influence the young
144
c) Violence on television encourages violence in real life
d) The viewer of fantasized violence is the criminal who acts out violence.
Passage III: Common Cold; Facts and Fancies.
You would think that the common cold should be easy enough to study, but it is not
so easy as it looks. Colds often seem to spread from one person to another, so it is
often assumed that the cold must be infectious, but there are some puzzling
observations, which do not fit in with this theory. An investigator in Holland
examined some eight thousand volunteers from different areas and came to the
conclusion that in each group the colds all appeared at the same time – transfer of
infection from case to case could not account for that. Yet at the Common Cold
Research Unit in Salisbury the infection theory has been tested out; two series of
about two hundred people each were inoculated, one with salt water and the other
with secretions from known cold victims. Only one of the salt-water group got a cold,
compared with seventy-three in the other group.
In the British Medical Journal the other day, there was a report of a meeting. ‘The
Common Cold – Fact and Fancy’, at which one of the speakers reported a study of
colds made in Cirencester over the last five years. Three hundred and fifty volunteers
had kept diary records of their colds and on an average each had seven every year,
with an annual morbidity of seventy days. So nearly one-fifth of our lives is spent in
more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the
common cold have turned out not to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable
to cold as the young. Sailors in isolated weather ships have just as many colds while
on board and not in contact with the outside world as when on shore. It is a truism
that common illness pose more problems than the rare. The rare disease is by
comparison much easier to handle. There are not so many cases and all of them have
been intensively studied. Someone has read up all the literature about the disease and
published a digest of it. There will be more facts and fewer fancies.
Miles Howard: ‘The Spectator’
11. A rare disease can be more easily dealt with than the common cold because
a)
b)
c)
d)
Medical experts are fed up with the rampant cases of common colds
Adequate research exists to uncover facts about such rare diseases
People easily develop resistance to the common colds
Common colds are easily not the province of the orthodox medical experts
12. The Cirencester volunteers kept a record of their colds through
a)
b)
c)
d)
The British Medical Journal
Morbidity rates
Personal diaries
Temperature recordings
13. From the information in the passage, there is evidence
a)
b)
c)
d)
For the theory that the common cold is indeed infectious
Against the theory that the common cold is infectious
That old people are immune against the common cold
That medical reports are silent on facts about common colds.
145
14. Which of the following statements can be implied from the passage?
a)
b)
c)
d)
People catch more colds in winter
People catch more colds in warm weather
The origin of colds is inconclusive
People catch colds equally in warm and cold weather
15. According to the writer, some widely held beliefs about the common colds are
a)
b)
c)
d)
Fallacious
Irreconcilable
Inevitable
Societal
Chapter 4
4.
Exploring the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use
on ESL learners’ reading comprehension performance in Nigeria
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on the
reading comprehension performance of English as Second Language (ESL) learners
who are native speakers of Igbo in Nigeria. Although several studies on reading
comprehension (RC) strategies suggest a positive relationship between strategy use
and RC, Phakiti (2003) has suggested that readers’ strategic behavior could be a
function of L2 learning context (e.g. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) versus
ESL). To explore this assumption, 80 ESL students who are Igbo native speakers
enrolled in two tertiary institutions in Nigeria read two passages, answered multiplechoice comprehension questions about them, and completed a cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use questionnaire after reading each passage. Results indicate
that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use jointly had a significant positive effect
on RC performance. However, only metacognitive strategy use uniquely contributed
significantly to RC performance. Frequency of use data for cognitive and
metacognitive strategy items were also compared between high and low performers
on the reading task. The usage levels for cognitive and metacognitive strategies
distinguished high performers from low performers in the RC test. However, the
cognitive strategy of translation, which has been reported in several studies as a
prominent reading strategy for second language learners, was hardly used by this
146
147
group of ESL readers. This finding may be due to the sociolinguistic environment of
the study participants.
Introduction
4.1.
Language testing research suggests that variability in performance in ESL and EFL
tests derives from two broad sources: the nature of the individual and the nature of the
task (Bachman, 1990). Phakiti (2003: 32) claims that reading comprehension research
in various contexts is necessary because ‘the use of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies may depend on the kind of test-taker, the setting in which testing occurs and
the nature of test tasks’. Individual learner factors such as language proficiency,
gender, culture, motivation, and anxiety have been found to play a role in cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use (Phakiti, 2006). The nature of the task is the type of
tasks (e.g. cloze, multiple-choice, summary tasks) used to assess performance, and the
level of task difficulty (see Alderson, 2000 for a detailed account of the role of task on
reading comprehension performance).
In line with previous research, the current study examines the role of cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use in RC. These factors (cognitive and metacognitive
strategies) have been identified as sources of variability in language performance (see
Phakiti, 2003 for more details). They are very relevant to performance in language
(Chou, 2013; Oxford, 2011). Therefore the nature of the variability in language
performance cannot be assessed in exclusion of these factors since they have been
found to affect linguistic performance (Phakiti, 2006). However, the contribution of
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to variability in L2 reading comprehension
has mainly been investigated in EFL contexts. It is expected that the mental processes
involved in ESL reading could diverge from EFL reading ones, particularly in ESL
148
contexts where English is dominant as in Nigeria. Therefore, the current study is
warranted as it will examine reading strategy use in Nigeria, a country where reading
comprehension has not been examined before and where English is not only a second
language, as it is in, for example, Singapore, the Philippines and Ghana, but also a
lingua franca (Adedimeji, 2004). Nigeria’s context seems unique particularly because
the use of English as a lingua franca has led to the underutilization of some, if not all,
local languages. This linguistic context therefore could potentially produce ESL
learners with unique characteristics warranting the current investigation. No study, to
the knowledge of the researcher, has previously investigated the use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies in the reading comprehension of Igbo ESL learners in
Nigeria.
4.1.1. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies
Cognitive strategies are cognitive mechanisms that learners employ to ease
comprehension challenges (Oxford, 2011). They involve consciously targeted actions
taken by readers to overcome comprehension challenges when they occur (Sheorey &
Mokhtari, 2001). It could involve simple actions like underlining some sections of a
text, rereading portions of a text to increase understanding, or reducing reading speed
when comprehension is threatened. Other targeted actions which could be considered
cognitive strategies include the manipulation of learning materials to enhance
learning, or the application of specific techniques to a learning task to attain a better
learning outcome (Rahimi & Katal, 2012). For example, in order to improve reading
comprehension in L2, a reader may choose to translate the L2 text into the L1. A
reader could also decide to use mnemonics to aid ability to recall, or attempt to
summarize texts in order to make comprehension better (Oxford, 1990). In his
149
conceptualization of cognitive strategies, which was inspired by the works of
Alderson (2000), Baker and Brown (1984), O’Malley & Chamot (1990), Oxford
(1990), and Purpura (1999), Phakiti (2003b: 651) conceived cognitive strategies to
include ‘making predictions, translating, summarizing, linking with prior knowledge
or experience, applying grammar rules, and guessing meaning from text’.
Cognitive strategies, which Oxford (2011: 44) also refers to as ‘cognitive
processing’, operate at three different stages, ‘the declarative, associative, and
procedural knowledge stages’. The declarative stage, said to be ‘conscious, effortful,
halting, and nonhabitual’ (Chou, 2013: 176), is a platform that allows learners to
employ strategies to aid their ability to notice and cope with new information. At the
associative stage, learners are able to practice the new information on the target
language, strengthen schemata, expand and connect such schemata to newly acquire
information on the task being learned, with the aid of strategies. Finally at the
procedural stage, strategies used for processing new information at the associative
stage may become automatized, beyond the conscious control of the learner, and can
now be deployed with less effort to the point of being an unconscious habitual
behaviour (Chou, 2013; Oxford, 2011). Some researchers argue that once any strategy
can be used automatically and unconsciously by a learner, it loses its status as strategy
because learner may no longer describe the strategy (Ellis, 1994). Such actions should
therefore be considered skills (Afflerbach et al., 2008; Manoli & Papadopoulou,
2012). This study also considers strategies as conscious mental processes.
Flavell (1979) and Brown et al. (1983) claim that there are two distinct
components of metacognition, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies.
They explain that while metacognitive knowledge concerns the information acquired
by learners in relation to their learning, metacognitive strategies help the learner
150
manage, regulate, direct, and guide the process of acquiring knowledge. Due to the
regulatory and control functions associated with metacognitive strategies, it is
believed that they often oversee the application of cognitive processes. For example,
in second language learning, all planning, focusing, eliciting of information,
organizing, coordinating, monitoring and evaluating of the cognitive processes, which
underpin the construction of knowledge, is believed to be a function of metacognitive
processing (Chou, 2013 citing Oxford, 2011).
In conclusion, cognitive and metacognitive strategies are two closely related
constructs: learners employ cognitive strategies to facilitate the attainment of
cognitive goals, while metacognitive strategies are used to monitor and regulate their
use (Flavell, 1979). In the learning process, the effectiveness of the use of cognitive
strategies relates to the role of metacognitive strategies as an overseeing, directing and
regulating entity. Cognitive progress is particularly made when metacognitive
strategies are effectively deployed to monitor it. Hence, as metacognition is said to be
contingent on cognition, metacognitive strategies are also contingent on cognitive
strategies; metacognitive strategies are considered higher-order agents overlooking
and governing the use of cognitive strategies (Phakiti, 2006; Veenman et al., 2006).
4.1.2. Reading in the L2
The ‘interactive compensatory’ (I-C) model of reading conceptualizes the L2 reading
process as a ‘juggling or switching process in cognition’ (Bernhardt, 2005: 140). The
I-C model, which was proposed by Stanovich (1980) holds that the comprehension
process operates at many levels, from letter recognition to word recognition to phrase
recognition to sentence level recognition. The model therefore assumes that
recognition of meaning involves a simultaneous application of many different
151
knowledge sources (Stanovich, 1980). According to the model, the sources can be
high-level sources such as topic knowledge, or low-level sources such as orthographic
or syntactic knowledge. However, the model assumes that ‘deficiencies at any level in
the processing hierarchy can be compensated for by greater use of information from
other levels, irrespective of the level of the deficient process’ (Stanovich, 1980: 49).
The ‘compensatory model of second language reading’ (CMSLR) proposed by
Bernhardt (2005) does not differ significantly from the I-C, since for both models the
most appropriate conceptualization of the L2 reading process resides in compensatory
processing. However, CMSLR does not only recognize, like I-C, the role of
compensatory processing in L2 reading, but goes further to predict how knowledge
sources assist or take over from other knowledge sources that are inadequate or
nonexistent in L2 reading. Bernhardt’s CMSLR is a tridimensional reading model that
captures literacy, language, particularly vocabulary, and dimensions of knowledge
sources in L2 reading that are yet to be explained.
The model posits that ‘knowledge sources are not additive, but rather are
considered to operate synchronically, interactively, and synergistically’ (Bernhardt
(2005: 140). For example, it is assumed within the model that:
Familiarity with orthographic patterns can facilitate the word recognition
process without actual language knowledge, …the higher the L1 literacy level,
the more it is available to buttress impoverished second language process,
…the more word knowledge is developed, the more it frees up resources to
operate on more complex patterns (Bernhardt, 2005: 140).
McNeil (2012) extended the compensatory model of L2 reading by proposing a
compensatory model of L2 reading that accommodates the contribution of L2
language knowledge, L1 reading ability, strategic knowledge, and background
knowledge to L2 reading. McNeil (2012: 74) argues that his extended model of L2
reading ‘explains ways in which the L2 readers draw from knowledge sources as they
152
construct meaning from written texts’. In McNeil’s model, therefore, L2 reading is
facilitated by the reader’s background and cultural knowledge (McNamara & Kintsch,
1996; Pritchard, 1990). The reader’s linguistic skills, background knowledge, cultural
knowledge, and individual characteristics all contribute to reading performance. The
inclusion of strategic knowledge as a component of the model, which the I-C model
did not recognize, is significant. McNeil (2012: 67), citing Bernhardt (2005) claims
that strategic knowledge is the ‘core of the compensatory model’ because the art of
using a knowledge source to compensate for deficiency in another amounts to a
strategic behaviour. Hence the I-C could as well be called the ‘strategic model of L2
reading’.
The extended compensatory model of L2 reading therefore suggests that when
tackling comprehension challenges, L2 readers compensate for ‘insufficient
knowledge sources’ with strategic knowledge, which enables them use cognitive and
metacognitive strategies to improve text comprehension (McNeil, 2012). The
implication is that the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies as an attribute in
L2 reading could potentially influence RC (see Bachman, 1990). Therefore, the
explicit inclusion of the role of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in the
compensatory models of L2 reading, which also inspired one of the research questions
in the study, informed the choice of the models for the current research.
4.1.3. Strategy use in L2 reading
One approach to explaining variability in L2 RC is the investigation of how cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use affects L2 RC. Many of these studies (e.g. Guo &
Roehrig, 2011; Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b, 2008; Shoerey & Mokhtari,
153
2001) found a significant positive effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use
on L2 RC.
For example, in a study with Thai university EFL students, Phakiti (2003)
examined the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and L2
reading comprehension. A strategy questionnaire was used to measure cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use, while reading comprehension was measured with
multiple-choice and gap-fill tasks. 15- 22% of variance in the reading performance of
the participants in the study was explained by the combination of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use. Also in a later study, Phakiti (2008) found that cognitive
and metacognitive strategies explained 11% - 30% of the variance in the reading
scores of 561 Thai university students.
Apart from having a positive effect on RC, cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use was also found to distinguish poor and good readers in some studies.
Skilled readers effectively regulate the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
(Nergis, 2013; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Sheorey and Mokhatari (2001: 445) claim
that in addition to being aware of the strategies to use, skilled readers ‘also tend to be
better at regulating the use of such strategies while reading’. They use more cognitive
and metacognitive strategies during reading (Baker & Brown, 1984; Ikeda &
Takeuchi, 2006). For example, Ikeda and Takeuchi (2006) used journal entries of 10
Japanese university EFL readers to examine the differences in the use of strategic
knowledge among proficient and less-proficient L2 readers. Proficient L2 readers
were found to use more combination of strategies. It has also been suggested that this
group of readers are better able to monitor their comprehension (Baker, 1989;
Morrison, 2004; Yang, 2002). In a study with French as Second Language
undergraduate students, Morrison (2004) reported a highly positive correlation
154
between comprehension monitoring ability measured with a monitoring task and
reading proficiency in L1 (English) and L2 (French).
In conclusion, the various theoretical assumptions on RC performance and
reading strategy use so far articulated tend to suggest that all that is required to enable
the formulation of a viable theory of performance variation in language use, or in L2
reading is already in place. However, this may not be entirely true given that ‘the use
of cognitive and metacognitive strategies may depend on the kind of test-taker, the
setting in which testing occurs and the nature of test tasks’ (Phakiti, 2003: 32). Phakiti
argues that since certain situational or contextual factors could have influenced the
findings of previous studies, more research is required in varying situations or
settings. For example, the socio-linguistic context in which English is spoken in
Nigeria as a lingua franca could lead to different reading strategies being used than in
EFL or other ESL contexts.
Moreover, the Igbo ESL learners in the study may possess unique
characteristics that set them apart from participants in previous studies. For example,
their attitude towards their L1, which could be described as ‘negative’, and that
towards their L2, which is very positive (see Igboanusi (2006) for a discussion on the
attitude of Igbos towards the language) is an attribute that could be lacking in other
ESL contexts. Their age of acquisition (AoA) of English, as well as their variability in
terms of academic orientations probably set them apart from participants in most
previous studies. In those studies, participants were often drawn from students
enrolled in English related programmes, and were probably ESL learners of late AoA
given that most of those studies were conducted with EFL participants. No study, to
the knowledge of the researcher, has previously examined the relationship between
155
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and performance in RC among Igbo ESL
learners in Nigeria. The following research questions were therefore set for the study:
1.
Which are the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by this
group of ESL learners during the English reading tasks?
2.
What is the relative effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use on the participants’ RC performance in English?
3.
Did high achievers in the RC test differ from low achievers in their
use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies?
4.
Which strategy item was the most frequently used during the RC
test?
5.
Which strategy item was the least frequently used during the RC
test?
Method
4.2.
4.2.1. Participants
Participants in the study consist of 80 Igbo students, 31 males and 49 females (mean
age = 26.3 years). 40 of the students were trainee teachers at the Federal College of
Education. The rest were undergraduate students at a Federal University of
Technology close to the Federal College of Education. All the participants have been
studying in these two institutions for a period of one to five years.
All participants volunteered to participate in the study. Participants were
provided with transportation to attend all the data collection sessions, and a token of
N1,000. A Global System for Mobile communication top-up voucher was given to
each participant as compensation.
156
A language learning and use self-report questionnaire was used to elicit
information on the participants’ L1, the language use of the participants at home, the
age at which learning of English as a second language commenced, and the
participants’ perceived level of reading ability in English (see Appendix A). Because
Igbo is spoken only in the southeastern part of Nigeria, and the study was conducted
in a Federal college located in the northern part of Nigeria, collecting information
about their native language were necessary to ensure that only native speakers of Igbo
would participate in the study.
Regarding their habitual language use at home, 68.75% of the participants
indicated that they exclusively communicate in Igbo at home, 23.75% said they
communicate in English and Igbo, while 7.5% indicated that they communicate
exclusively in English. It is important to note that communicating both in English and
Igbo is not an unusual behaviour among the Igbo native speakers. This finding agrees
with previous research, which indicates that English is a second rather than a foreign
language in Nigeria.
The average age at which the participants reported that they started learning
English is 4.6 years. This AoA of English indicates that to most of these participants,
the acquisition of English commenced very early in their development.
The participants’ perceived level of reading ability in English was measured
with an item on a five-point Likert scale that required the participants to rate their
reading ability in English as 0 (No ability), 1 (Low), 2 (Fairly low), 3 (Fairly high), 4
(High), and 5 (Very high). Several studies suggest that self-report proficiency scales
correlate very highly with actual measures of language ability (e.g., Maclntyre et al.,
1997; Kroll et al., 2002), and self-report scales have been used widely (e.g., Colzato
et al., 2008; Dewaele et al., 2008; Rai et al., 2011). 12.5% of the participants rated
157
their English reading ability to be Very high, 41.25% High, 42.5% Fairly high, and
3.75% rated their reading ability in English Fairly low. The overall average rating of
their reading ability in English on the Five-point scale is 3.63, which could be
considered high.
4.2.2. Measures
4.2.3. Reading comprehension measures
Two reading comprehension passages, all expository essays, were used to test RC in
the study. Passage 1 is about ants’ intelligence, while passage 2 is on the effects of
noise on task performance. Passage 1 contains 511 running words, while passage 2
617 (see appendix B).
The reading passages were taken from Cambridge IELTS 7
(2009) with some modifications. For example, to abridge the passages, parts that have
no bearing to the comprehension questions were deleted without distorting the flow of
discourse in the passage. Additional questions were created to achieve a balance of 15
multiple-choice questions per passage. None of the passages was presented with a title
because titles would have made it too easy for the participants to answer some of the
questions.
Each passage was accompanied by ten multiple-choice questions, and a
summary cloze-test with five gaps to fill. The summary cloze-test was a summary of
the reading passages, which included some gaps. The remainder of this section will
explain the rationale behind choosing each of these test types for the study and will
also describe each test.
The multiple-choice test (MCT) format was preferred to other test formats
(e.g., free-recall) due to its popularity in the examination system in Nigeria, and the
158
participants’ unfavorable attitude towards the free-recall and summarization test
formats during the pilot study. The MCT format was preferred over other formats also
because there is a well-established procedure in place for analyzing MCT answers
(Wesche & Paribakht, 1996), which helps achieve high scorer reliability (Alptekin &
Ercetin, 2011). I am aware of the controversy on the validity of the multiple-choice
test for assessing reading comprehension (see Rupp, Ferne, & Choi, 2006). However,
because they restrict the possible answers to comprehension questions, they make
data analysis easy (Phakiti, 2003).
Each multiple-choice question has four distractors. The questions were
designed to be sensitive to some of the mental representations that readers form as
they attempt to construct meaning from a text such as using available clues in a text to
enhance comprehension, or engaging information that is not within the text to
engender better text comprehension (see Magliano et al., 2007). In particular, five out
of the ten multiple-choice questions set for each passage are local questions, and the
remaining five are inferential questions. Local questions were designed to test
readers’ general ability to locate explicit information in the text, at the sentential or
contextual level (e.g. which of these abilities, according to the passage distinguishes
humans from ants? The statement, ‘subjects exposed to noise find it difficult at first to
concentrate on problem-solving tasks’ is attributed to which of these researchers?).
Inferential questions tested readers’ ability to go beyond the text to use information
from the text and previous knowledge to provide explanations, draw analogies, or
predict meaning (Pascual & Goikoetxea, 2014). Examples of inferential questions are:
What does the phrase ‘the forcing house of intelligence’ suggests in the context it was
used? Which of the following statements best reflects the author’s view on noise?
159
The summary cloze tests, each with five gaps were created by deleting some
content words from short summaries of the texts read by the participants with the
purpose of testing the participants’ understanding of the overall meaning of the text
(Alderson, 2000). Therefore, words essential to the main ideas of the text or to text
coherence are deleted from the summary texts. Multiple-choice options from which
test-takers were to select appropriate words to fill the 5 gaps in each summary text
were presented alphabetically after each text. Text 1 had 15 alternative words
including 10 distractors, while text 2 had 10 alternative words including 5 distractors
to choose from. In addition to the popularity of this test format in Nigeria, the reason
for the choice of the summary task was to ensure that overall understanding of the text
was also assessed.
4.2.4. Cognitive and metacognitive strategy measure
A cognitive and metacognitive strategy questionnaire was used in the study. The
questionnaire was based on the 15 items in the two composites of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies identified by means of exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
conducted on a 35-item questionnaire by Phakiti (2003). Phakiti reported that the EFA
result revealed that the items in the questionnaire clustered in two factors, one factor
related mainly to cognitive strategies, and the other mainly related to metacognitive
strategies. Based on this dichotomy, five strategy items in the 35-item questionnaire
(e.g. ‘I translated the reading text and tasks into English to enhance my
understanding’, ‘I read the text and questions several times to better understand
them’) were shortlisted as items relating to cognitive strategy use, while 10 items (e.g.
‘I was aware of what and how I was doing in the test’, ‘I checked my answers as I
progressed in the test’, ‘I corrected mistakes immediately when found’) were also
160
shortlisted as relating to metacognitive strategy use in the study. The 15 items
shortlisted for this study were each followed by a 5-point Likert scale, which requires
participants to assess whether a strategy is used 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3(often), 4
(usually) and 5 (always).
In the end, only 14 items were used in the study. Item 33 (‘I determined how
to solve the test’) was excluded and hence did not appear in the strategy questionnaire
because it did not seem to be intelligible to most participants when the questionnaire
was piloted in an earlier study by the researcher. Apart from changing the word ‘Thai’
to ‘Igbo’ in item 2, no other modification was made to the questionnaire items.
Strategy use was measured only via this self-report questionnaire for reasons
similar to those given by Phakiti (2003). I was concerned that introspective verbal
reporting could affect participants’ performance on the RC task given that participants
found it very difficult to combine it with reading in the pilot study. The combination
of think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews was not used because during the
piloting phase of this study, learners were unable to think-aloud during the reading
test, while they found the retrospective interview intrusive.
In the current study, reading comprehension performance was measured with a
timed RC test. The 14 items in the two composites of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies identified by means of EFA in Phakiti (2003) were chosen for the
questionnaire because they were designed to measure specific cognitive and
metacognitive strategies associated with RC in a testing context.
4.3.
Data collection procedure
The study was conducted at a Federal College of Education in the north of Nigeria.
Data collection took place when the students’ regular academic activities were in
161
progress. Participants were students in two institutions, enrolled in different academic
programmes with incongruous academic schedules. It was, therefore, difficult for all
participants to take the RC test and answer the reading strategy questionnaire at the
same time. It was agreed with participants to hold the sessions in groups, based on
their availability. Six groups were created.
Participants completed the Participant’s Information Sheet and Consent Form
and a bio-data questionnaire before taking the RC test.
The RC test involved reading two passages and answering a total of 30
multiple-choice questions. Participants were given 40 minutes to read each passage
and answer the 15 multiple-choice questions accompanying the passage. An average
of 5 minutes was allowed for participants to respond to the reading strategy
questionnaire immediately after reading each passage. The test-retest internal
consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for the questionnaire was 0.84,
which is considered high (Field, 2013).
4.4.
Results
Delineation of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by the readers
Tables 1 and 2 present the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness,
and kurtosis) of the cognitive and metacognitive strategy questionnaire item ratings,
respectively. The statistical results in these tables and all subsequent tables are based
on the participants’ average ratings for each of the items. Although analyzing ordinal
data like interval data has been criticized (see Kuzon et al., 1996; Jamieson, 2004),
this approach was adopted because ordinal scales are reduced to interval data when
they consist of sums across items (Carifio & Perla, 2008; Norman, 2010).
162
Table 1: Cognitive strategy items’ mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis
Cognitive strategy items
1. I translated the reading text and tasks into Igbo to
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
1.64
.879
1.580
2.248
3.73
1.082
-.499
-.786
2.26
1.113
.650
-.646
3.85
.931
-.422
-.687
3.43
1.050
-.125
-.950
enhance my understanding.
2. I tried to understand the text and questions
regardless of my vocabulary knowledge.
3. I tried to find topics and main ideas of the passage
without reading it in detail.
4. I read the text and questions several times to better
understand them.
5. I used my prior knowledge to help understand the
text.
Table 2: Metacognitive strategy items’ mean, standard deviation, skewness, and
kurtosis
Metacognitive strategy items
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
6. I was aware of what and how I was doing in the test.
3.25
1.21
-.114
-1.096
7. I checked my answers as I progress in the test.
3.60
1.14
-.655
-.434
8. I corrected mistakes immediately when found.
3.90
1.30
-.978
-.243
9. I determined what the test questions require me to
3.70
1.00
-.377
-.870
10. I was aware of the need to plan a course of action.
2.85
1.16
.040
-.937
11. I tried to understand the questions adequately
4.39
.72
-1.084
.395
3.25
1.05
-.059
-.792
do.
before attempting to answer.
12. I was aware of selected strategies to help me
complete the test questions before solving them.
163
13. I checked my accuracy as I progressed through the
3.54
1.06
-.540
-.234
4.04
1.00
-.952
-.028
test.
14. I identified relevant information in the text to help
me understand the text and answer the questions.
It is clear from the skewness and kurtosis values obtained that the distribution of some
items in the dataset in Table 1 and 2 is not normal, with skewness scores greater than
1 or below -1 for some questionnaire items. This distribution does not support running
a parametric analysis. Therefore, the overall degree of use for each cognitive and
metacognitive strategy item by the participants was determined by setting a cut-off
point of 0.8 for equal intervals between the 5 levels in the questionnaire’s Likert scale
(see Akkakoson, 2013 for a similar procedure). Five levels, signifying five different
degrees of use for each strategy item, which correspond with the five levels in the
questionnaire, were created as follows:
1. A mean score of 1.00 – 1.80 would indicate that the students never use a
particular strategy (the lowest level).
2. A mean score of 1.81 – 2.60 would indicate that the students sometimes use a
particular strategy (the low usage level).
3. A mean score of 2.61 – 3.40 would indicate that the students often use a
particular strategy (the medium-usage level).
4. A mean score of 3.41 – 4.20 would indicate that the students usually use a
particular strategy (the high-usage level).
5. A mean score of 4.21 – 5.00 would indicate that the students use a particular
strategy always whenever they read (the highest level).
Using the above criteria, it was decided that items that are within level 1 (never =
lowest level of use), and level 2 (sometimes = low usage level), should be considered
164
respectively as items never used or used only a few times by the participants during
the reading test. Therefore, these strategies may not have played an important role in
their performance in the RC test.
The rating of the strategy items indicates that only one strategy item (‘I tried
to understand the questions adequately before attempting to answer.’) out of the 14
strategy items surveyed received the highest level of usage, suggesting that
participants used the strategy ‘always’ during the RC test. Eight strategy items (‘I
tried to understand the text and questions regardless of my vocabulary knowledge.’ ‘I
read the text and questions several times to better understand them.’ ‘I used my prior
knowledge to help understand the text.’ ‘I checked my answers as I progress in the
test’. ‘I corrected mistakes immediately when found.’ ‘I determined what the test
questions require me to do.’ ‘I checked my accuracy as I progressed through the test’.
and ‘I identified relevant information in the text to help me understand the text and
answer the questions.’) received high usage level rating indicating that participants
‘usually’ used these strategy items during the RC test. Three strategy items (‘I was
aware of what and how I was doing in the test.’ ‘I was aware of the need to plan a
course of action.’ and ‘I was aware of selected strategies to help me complete the test
questions before solving them.’) received medium usage level ratings, which suggests
that the participants ‘often’ used these strategies during the RC test. In all, twelve
strategies (3 cognitive and 9 metacognitive) were used, one (cognitive strategy) was
not used, and another was used just a few times during the RC test. Usage of the
strategies at the highest level is 7%, 58% at the high usage level, and 21% at the
medium usage level.
Determining the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on RC performance.
165
Pearson correlation between cognitive strategy use and RC scores (r = .253, p < 0.05,
N = 80), and metacognitive strategy use and RC scores (r = .342, p = < .05, N = 80)
indicated that readers that achieved high scores in the RC test tended to report a
higher rate of usage for cognitive and metacognitive strategies during the RC test.
These significant correlations suggest a positive relationship between the use of these
reading strategies and performance in RC. Therefore, a multiple regression analysis
was conducted, with cognitive and metacognitive strategy use as predictors and the
RC scores as the outcome, to determine the effect of cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use on the RC performance of the ESL readers.
In order to check whether the requirements of multiple regression analysis
were met, the data was checked for outliers using the analysis of standard residuals,
which indicated that there were no outliers in the dataset (Std. Residual Min = -1.916,
Std. Residual Max = 1.952). The test for the assumption of collinearity was
conducted. The result indicated that multicollinearity was not evident in the data
(Cognitive strategy use, Tolerance = .76, Metacognitive strategy use, Tolerance =
.76). The residuals were also uncorrelated, indicating that the data met the assumption
of independent errors (Durbin-Watson value = 1.87). The visual examination of the
histogram of standardized residuals indicated that it is comfortable to conclude that
the data contained errors that are approximately normally distributed. The normal P-P
plot of the standardized residuals revealed points that lie almost perfectly on the
regression line. The scatterplot of the standardized residual indicated that the
assumptions of homogeneity of variance and linearity were met in the data.
Predictors were entered into the multiple regression analysis using the
sequential approach. Following Nergis (2013), it was decided that reported use of
metacognitive strategies should enter the multiple regression analysis as the first
166
predictor variable since it yielded the highest correlation (r = .342, p = < .05, N = 80)
with reading comprehension scores, which purported to measure reading
comprehension performance. The results, presented in Table 3, indicated that the two
predictors explained 12.7% of the variance. The results further indicated that
metacognitive strategy use significantly predicted RC performance (β = .29, p < .05),
whereas cognitive strategy use did not. The standardized coefficient for metacognitive
strategy use indicated that one unit change in metacognitive strategy use by this group
of ESL readers led to an increase of .29 in their RC scores, if cognitive strategy use
was kept at mean level.
Table 3: Coefficients of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use with overall RC
scores
Model
Unstandardized
Standardized
95% Confidence
coefficients
coefficients
interval for B
B
Std.
Beta
t
Sig.
error
R2 = 0.127
Constant
7.48
2.87
Cognitive
.853
.922
1.84
.786
Lower
Upper
bound
bound
2.61
.011
1.77
13.20
.113
.925
.358
-.984
2.69
.287
2.346
.022
.279
3.41
strategy
Metacognitive
strategy
Establishing the difference in cognitive and metacognitive strategy use between high
and low achievers in the RC test
167
A paired samples t-test was conducted to determine the difference in participants’
reported use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in the study, before conducting
further t-tests to determine if there was a significant difference between high and low
achievers in the use of these strategies. The first group of t-tests was conducted to
determine if it would be necessary to conduct the second one. Not finding significant
differences at this point would indicate that the subsequent tests were not warranted.
Normality tests indicated that data in the two conditions (cognitive strategy
use and metacognitive strategy use) was approximately normally distributed. Graphic
representation of the mean ratings for cognitive and metacognitive strategy items for
the HPs and LPs is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2: High and Low performers’ mean ratings for metacognitive and cognitive
strategy questionnaire items
Average ratings on 5-point scale
4.5
4
3.5
3
4.0017
3.4949
3.1359
2.5
2.7
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
High performers' Low performers'
metacognitive
metacognitive
strategy use
strategy use
High performers' Low performers'
cognitive strategy cognitive strategy
use
use
The result of the paired sample t-test indicated that participants in the study reported
significantly higher levels of usage for the metacognitive (M = 3.62, SD = .72) than
the cognitive strategies (M = 2.98, SD = .61), t (79) = 8.31, p < .01, d = 0.94. To
168
conduct the analysis to determine the difference between high and low achievers at
the RC test in the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, participants were split
into high and low achievers based on the mean of the RC scores. Participants whose
scores in the RC test are above the mean (M = 16.7) were grouped as high achievers
(N = 39), while those that their scores are not above the mean (N = 41), were grouped
as low achievers.
These two groups of participants were then compared in terms of their mean
ratings for cognitive strategy use and metacognitive strategy use. Normality tests
indicated that the distributions for the HP metacognitive strategy use and LP cognitive
strategy use ratings were not normal. The case-wise diagnostics identified 7 outliers in
HP metacognitive strategy use group data and 4 in LP cognitive strategy use group
data. The outliers were excluded, which resulted in running the paired sample t-tests
with unequal sample sizes. SPSS was instructed to treat the excluded outliers as
missing values in the subsequent analysis. The results of the paired sample t-test
conducted to determine if the high and low achievers differed significantly in their
reported level of use for cognitive and metacognitive strategies indicated that there
were statistically significant differences in the reported levels of usage between these
groups:
•
HP cognitive strategy use (M = 3.136, SD = .583) vs. LP cognitive strategy
use (M = 2.7, SD = .431), t (36) = 3.99, p < .01, d = 0.8
•
HP metacognitive strategy use (M = 4.002, SD = .424) vs. LP metacognitive
strategy use (M = 3.495, SD = .683), t (32) = 3.12, p < .05, d = 0.89.
Statistical results suggest that in general, HPs in the RC test had higher usage level for
cognitive and metacognitive strategies compared to the LPs during the RC test, which
tends to account for their better performance at the RC if all other factors are constant.
169
In other words, high achievers in the RC test used more cognitive and metacognitive
strategies than low achievers. Cohen’s d test of effect size indicated that the high
usage of these strategies by high performers in the current study had a large effect on
their RC performance (cognitive strategy, d = 0.8, metacognitive strategy, d = .89).
Identifying cognitive or metacognitive strategy item(s) used most frequently, and least
frequently by the readers
The number of participants that rated each scale of every strategy item and their
percentage was computed to enable a decision to be made on the strategy items that
the participants used the most and least. A strategy item was considered as the least
frequently used if most participants had indicated on the strategy use questionnaire
that they ‘Never’ used it; a strategy was considered as the most frequently used if
most participants had answered that they ‘Always’ used the item during the RC test.
Table 4 presents the number and percentage of participants that selected each point in
the Likert-scale of each item in the strategy-use questionnaire.
Table 4: Number and percentage of participants that selected each point in the Likertscale of each item in the strategy-use questionnaire
Strategies
1. I translated the reading text and tasks into
Igbo to enhance my understanding.
2. I tried to understand the text and questions
regardless of my vocabulary knowledge.
3. I tried to find topics and main ideas of the
passage
without reading it in detail.
Never
Sometimes
Often
Usually
Always
47
25
4
4
0
(59%)
(31%)
(5%)
(5%)
2
15
19
24
20
(2.5%)
(18.75%)
(23.75%)
(30%)
(25%)
32
22
15
10
1
(40%)
(27.5%)
(18.75%)
(12.5%)
(1.25%)
170
4. I read the text and questions several times
to better understand them.
5. I used my prior knowledge to help
understand the text.
6. I was aware of what and how I was doing
in the test.
7. I checked my answers as I progress in the
test.
8. I corrected mistakes immediately when
found.
9. I determined what the test questions require
me to do.
10. I was aware of the need to plan a course of
action.
11. I tried to understand the questions
1
11
21
27
20
(1.25%)
(13.75%)
(26.25%)
(33.75%)
(25%)
2
21
24
21
12
(2.5%)
(26.25%)
(30%)
(26.25%)
(15%)
9
20
21
18
12
(11.25%)
(25%)
(26.25%)
(22.5%)
(15%)
8
7
23
27
15
(10%)
(8.75%)
(28.75%)
(33.75%)
(18.75%)
7
9
13
16
35
(8.75%)
(11.25%)
(16.25%)
(20%)
(43.75%)
3
13
22
28
14
(3.75%)
(16.25%)
(27.5%)
(35%)
(17.5%)
15
24
22
15
4
(18.75%)
(30%)
(27.5%)
(18.75%)
(5%)
0
1
14
28
37
(1.25%)
(17.5%)
(35%)
(46.25%)
adequately before attempting to answer.
12. I was aware of selected strategies to help
5
19
29
19
8
me complete the test questions before solving
(6.25%)
(23.75%)
(36.25%)
(23.75%)
(10%)
6
11
26
25
12
(7.5%)
(13.75%)
(32.5%)
(31.25%)
(15%)
2
8
13
29
28
(2.5%)
(10%)
(16.25%)
(36.25%)
(35%)
them.
13. I checked my accuracy as I progressed
through the test.
14. I identified relevant information in the
text to help me understand the text and
answer the questions.
Table 4 indicates that 59% of the participants in the study had answered that they
‘Never’ used the strategy of translating into the L1 to enhance comprehension. It also
shows that 46.25% of the participants in the study had stated that they ‘Always’ used
171
the strategy of trying to adequately understand a question before answering it.
It is worth mentioning that the rating of these scale points (‘Never’ and
‘Always’) for the strategy items (1 and 11) is not just the highest in the entire
observations but are also the highest rating received by the other remaining scales
(Sometime, Often, and Usually) for any of the other strategy items surveyed. It is
probably safe to conclude that participants in the study used strategy item 1 (‘I
translated the reading text and tasks into Igbo to enhance my understanding’.) and 11
(‘I tried to understand the questions adequately before attempting to answer’.)
differently from the rest of other strategy items surveyed.
4.5.
Discussion
The perceived use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies by the ESL readers in the
current study is substantially related to their performance in RC. According to the
regression analysis, cognitive and metacognitive strategies jointly explained 12.7% of
the variance in their RC scores (see Phakiti, 2003, 2008, for related results). Perceived
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use also distinguished high performers from low
performers in the reading comprehension test, with high performers reporting higher
use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies during the reading task. In other words,
the study identified cognitive and metacognitive strategies as sources of variability in
reading comprehension, which in the current study was measured via a RC test. This
finding offers support to claims about the relevance of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies to language performance (Chou, 2013; Oxford, 2011). Hence, the nature of
the variability in language performance probably should not be assessed in exclusion
of the strategies used to cope with reading or other language comprehension tasks
(Phakiti, 2006), as is evident between high and low achievers in the study.
172
This study’s findings are also congruent with studies which have suggested
that high achievers in RC tests can be distinguished from low achievers by the
quantity of cognitive and metacognitive strategies they use: skilled readers use more
cognitive and metacognitive strategies during reading, which often is not the case
with poor readers (Baker & Brown, 1984; Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2006). However, the
standardized coefficients for cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in the
regression analysis indicated that cognitive strategy use did not contribute
significantly to the students’ performance in the RC test. By contrast, metacognitive
strategy use had a significant positive effect on the students’ performance on the RC
test (β = .29, p < .05). The positive effect of metacognitive strategy use on RC
performance, particularly with advanced ESL readers, has been reported in several
previous studies (e.g., Dabarera, Renandya, & Zhang, 2014; Guo & Roehrig, 2011;
Nergis, 2013). For example, Nergis (2013) found in her study with Singaporean
students that metacognitive reading strategy was the strongest predictor of academic
reading comprehension; Dabarera, Renandya, and Zhang (2014) found that
metacognitive
strategy
awareness
and
use
improved
through
instruction led to higher RC scores for ESL students. The current study therefore
provides additional evidence in support of the position that metacognitive strategy use
improves performance in RC tasks in the L2. Readers that often use metacognitive
strategies during RC tests are more likely to perform better than those who do not.
It is worth noting also that the perceived use of the strategies by the ESL
readers in the study was not uniform for the various categories. Although this is not
unexpected, it is noteworthy that while doing the RC task the readers appear to have
rated two strategy questionnaire items distinctively. A metacognitive strategy (‘I tried
to understand the questions adequately before attempting to answer.’ and a cognitive
173
strategy (‘I translated the reading text and tasks into Igbo to enhance my
understanding.’), stood out in terms of their ratings from other questionnaire items.
While the former was the most highly used strategy, the readers mostly never used the
latter. Taking time to adequately understand the meaning of a question before
answering it could be considered a strategy expected of every test-taker attempting to
get high scores in a test. However, it is unusual for ESL readers to indicate that they
never used the strategy of translating into their L1 to enhance RC in the L2, since
translating from L2 to L1 has been reported in several previous studies with EFL
readers as a strategy often used by L2 readers, which has a positive effect on RC
performance (Kern, 1994; Li & Munby, 1996; Mushait, 2003; Yau, 2009). For
example, Yau (2009) found mental translation to be a prominent strategy among
Taiwanese EFL students in his study. He therefore claims that ‘mental translation can
be a constructive means for promoting L2 text comprehension’ (Yau, 2009: 231).
However, it is important to note that most studies that investigated L2 reading were
conducted in EFL contexts, not in ESL contexts, where English is a lingua franca.
EFL readers often have well developed L1 reading skills prior to reading in English,
which could explain why they are more likely to resort to the L1 to aid reading
comprehension in English. But for the ESL readers in the current study, this probably
could not be the case because of poorly developed L1 reading ability. 59% of the
participants indicated that they never used this strategy during the RC test. In addition
to this number, 31% of participants indicated that they use it sometimes suggesting
also that they do not use it frequently.
The contrast between the rare use of the translation strategy found in the
current study and the frequent use of this strategy in other studies may indicate that
the use of this strategy is L2-context sensitive. The suggestion by Oxford (1990) and
174
Rahimi and Katal (2012) that people from different cultures adopt different strategies
when tackling learning tasks appears to be congruent with this finding.
An alternative explanation for the low use of the translation strategy by Igbo
learners of English may be that English is a second language and a lingua franca in
Nigeria. As a result, children start learning English very early in life, as the average
AoA (4.6 years) of English, which the participants in the study indicated, tends to
suggest. One consequence of this early exposure to English in this context coupled
with the frequent use of English for the rest of an L1 Igbo child’s life is that one’s L1
tends to play a secondary role in his/her communication needs. Such ESL learners
tend to constantly switch from the L1 to English as a communicative strategy (Akere,
1981), a behaviour that is very common with most Igbo native speakers each time
they try to communicate in Igbo. The consequence is that children consider English as
central to their linguistic performance (Mustapha, 2014) and, consequently, do not
tend to translate into the L1 to make meaning during English reading tasks.
4.6.
Limitations of the study and conclusion
This study aimed to locate the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by Igbo L1
speakers in Nigeria and assess quantitatively their possible impact on English RC
performance.
A limited number of cognitive and metacognitive strategies were
targeted for the study and only one indirect measure, self-report questionnaire used
retrospectively. These aspects of the study constitute its limitations. As a result,
caution should be applied in interpreting the finding of the study. However, the first
limitation could have worked in favour of the validity of the study. Considering that
the test-takers were just volunteers, and there was nothing academically at stake for
them, they may not have been patient enough to answer a strategy questionnaire with
175
many items twice during the test. In terms of the second limitation of the study, a selfreport questionnaire was used because in the relevant pilot study think-loud proved to
be an inappropriate data elicitation method.
To summarise, the study’s findings suggest that the combination of cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use, as was reported by the readers, was significantly
related to performance in reading comprehension. However, only metacognitive
strategy
use
uniquely
contributed
significantly
to
reading
comprehension
performance. High achievers in the reading comprehension test reported the use of
more cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Therefore, in terms of reading
comprehension in general, the study suggests that cognitive and metacognitive
strategies are very important tools in L2 reading comprehension performance.
Performance in a reading comprehension test therefore is, to a certain degree, a
function of the readers’ ability to employ these strategies at a reasonable level of
usage, as suggested by the difference between the reported use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies between the high and low achievers in the reading task.
This study also identified the frequency of reported use of each strategy
measured with the questionnaire. It also focused on the most and least frequently used
strategies. A notable finding was that the L1-translation strategy was not associated
with reading in the L2 for the ESL readers in the study. The use of some strategies
may be driven by certain sociolinguistic or cultural situation. Therefore, L2 readers in
varying contexts may or may not use a particular strategy during RC tests. The study
posits that the L1-translation strategy, which has been reported by researchers as a
prominent strategy among L2 readers, is probably not a universally applied strategy
by L2 readers.
176
References
4.7.
Adedimeji, M. A. (2004). The unifying role of English in a multilingual nation: The
case of Nigeria. In O. Ndimele (Ed.), Language and Culture in Nigeria (pp.
67-74). Aba, Imo State, Nigeria: National Institute for Nigerian Languages.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between
reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher , 61 (5), 364-373.
Akere, F. (1981). Sociolinguistic consequences of language contact: English versus
Nigerian languages. Language Sciences , 3 (2), 283-304.
Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student
learning of L2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal
of Research in Reading , 36 (4), 422-450.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Alptekin, C., & Ercetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content
familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Tesol
Quarterly , 45 (2), 235-266.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, Comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader.
Educational Psychology Review , 1 (1), 3-38.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson
(Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York:
Longman.
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 25, 133-150.
177
Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983). Learning, remembering,
and understanding. In J. Flavell, & M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael's manual
of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.
Cambridge IELTS 7. (2009). Examination papers from University of Cambridge
ESOL examinations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carifio, L., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50 year debate around using and
misusing Likert scales. Medical Education , 42 (12), 1150-1152.
Chou, M.-h. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific
academic purposes in testing and nontesting contexts. Reading Research
Quarterly , 48 (2), 175-197.
Colzato, L. S., Baja, M. T., Van Den Wildenberg, W., & Paolieri, D. (2008). How
does biligualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and
reactive inhibition mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition , 34 (2), 302-312.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive
scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System , 42, 462-473.
Dewaele, J. M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional
intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and
foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical
investigation. Language Learning , 58 (4), 911-960.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th edition).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
178
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist , 34 (10), 906-911.
Guo, Y., & Roehrig, A. D. (2011). Roles of general versus second language (L2)
knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Lnaguage , 23
(1), 42-64.
Igboanusi, H. (2008). Is Igbo an endangered language? Multilinguam- Journal of
Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication , 25 (4), 443-452.
Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2006). Clarifying the differences in learning EFL reading
strategies: an analysis of portfolios. System , 34, 384-398.
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education , 38 (12),
1217-1218.
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition , 16 (4), 441-461.
Kroll, J. F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of
lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language Research , 18 (2),
137-171.
Kuzon, W. M., Urbanchek, M. G., & McCabe, S. (1996). The seven deadly sins of
statistical analysis. Annals of Plastic Surgery , 37 (3), 265-272.
Li, S., & Munby, H. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in second language academic
reading: A qualitative investigation. English fo Specific Purpose , 15 (3), 199216.
Maclntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second
language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning , 47
(2), 265-287.
179
Magliano, J., Millis, K., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. (2007). A multidimentional
framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.),
Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, intervensions, and technologies
(pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Manoli, P., & Papadopoulou, M. (2012). Reading strategies versus reading skills:
Two faces of the same coin. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 46,
817-821.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior
knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes , 22 (3), 247-288.
McNeil, L. (2012). Extending the compensatory model of second language reading.
System , 40 (1), 64-76.
Morrison, L. (2004). Comprehension monitoring in first and second language reading.
The Canadian Modern Language Review , 61 (1), 77-106.
Mushait, S. A. (2003). The relationship of L1 reading and L2 language proficiency
with the L2 reading comprehension and strategy. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Essex.
Mustapha, A. S. (2014). Linguistic hegemony of the English language in Nigeria.
Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura , 19 (1), 83-97.
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP
learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12 (1), 1-9.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics.
Advanced Health Science Education Theory Practice , 15 (5), 626-632.
O'Malley, M. J., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
180
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow,
UK: Pearson Education.
Pascual, G., & Goikoetxea, E. (2014). Comprehension of university texts: Effects of
domain-knowledge and summary. Reading Psychology , 35, 101-126.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language
Learning , 53 (4), 649-702.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing ,
20 (1), 26-56.
Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer's (1996) strategic
competence model over time in EFL reading test. Language Testing , 25 (2),
237-272.
Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their
relationship to EFL reading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language
Testing , 1, 53-95.
Pritchard, A. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly , 25 (4), 273-295.
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A
structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge, England: University of
Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.
Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). Metacognitive strategies awareness and success in
learning English as a foreign language: An overview. Pocedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences , 31, 73-81.
181
Rai, M. K., Loschky, L. C., Haris, R. J., Peck, N. R., & Cook, L. G. (2011). Effects of
stress and working memory capacity on foreign language readers' inferential
processing during comprehension. Language Learning, A Journal of Research
in Language Studies , 61 (1), 187-218.
Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension
with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing
perspective. Language Testing , 23 (4), 441-474.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System , 29 (4), 431449.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly , 16, 3271.
Veeman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition
and learning: Conceptual and methodogical considerations. Metacognition and
learning , 1 (1), 3-14.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary
knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review , 53 (1),
13-40.
Yang, Y. (2002). Reassessing readers' comprehension monitoring. Reading in a
foreign language , 14 (1), 18-42.
Yau, J.-l. C. (2009). Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents:
Knowledge and application of strategic reading. Metacognition and Learning ,
4 (3), 217-235.
182
Appendix A: Biodata questionnaire
About the Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to elicit some background information about you.
Please rest assured that all information provided will be kept confidential.
Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions in this
questionnaire, so feel free to provide the answers that you deem right.
Questionnaire
Please take some time and respond to all the questions in this questionnaire. Please
ask me for clarification if a question is unclear.
Tick as appropriate, please. You are also free to tick as many answers as you think
appropriate to each question.
3. Which is your native language?
Igbo
Hausa
☐
Yoruba
☐
English
☐
☐
None
☐
2.Which other language(s) do you speak?
Hausa
☐
Yoruba
English
☐
☐
Others ______________________________(Please name the languages)
3. At which age did you start learning English? ______________________________
4. Please rate your Reading Ability in the English Language using the scale below:
No ability (0)
☐
☐☐ ☐
☐
Low (1)
Fairly low (2)
Fairly high (3)
High (4)
V. High (5)
☐
5. Which language(s) do you speak at home? ________________(Please name the languages)
6. In which of these other languages can you read?
Hausa
☐
Yoruba
English
☐☐
Others -----------------------------------------(Please name the languages)
Participant Information
What is your Registration Number? __________________________________
What is your subject combination or name of your degree? ____________________
183
What is your class level or year of study? ________________________________
How old are you?
__________________________________
Do you have any hearing problem?
Yes
☐
No
If YES please say the nature of the hearing problem___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Do you have any problem with your vision?
No
Yes
If YES please say the nature of the vision problem you have ____________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Do you have any problem with reading texts?
Yes
☐
No
☐
If YES please say the nature of the problem _________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Please indicate your gender
Male
Female
Please write your phone number. I would like to contact you to ask for more
information, if necessary.
__________________________________
Thank you for participating in my study!
184
Appendix B: Reading comprehension tasks
Reg. No.:
Instructions
Before you start the test please write your registration number.
Read the passage carefully, making sure you have a good understanding of the
passage
Below the passage there are two different tasks, with different instructions. Please
follow the instructions provided for each task while doing the task.
Reading passage 1
When we think of intelligent members of the animal kingdom, the creatures that
spring immediately to mind are apes and monkeys. But the social lives of some
members of the insect kingdom are sufficiently complex to suggest more than a hint
of intelligence. Among these, the world of the ants has come in for considerable
scrutiny lately, and the idea that ants demonstrate sparks of cognition has certainly not
been rejected by those involved in these investigations.
Ants store food, repel attackers and use chemical signals to contact one another in
case of attack. Such chemical communication can be compared to the human use of
visual and auditory channels (as in religious chants, advertising images and jingles,
political slogans and martial music) to arouse and propagate moods and attitudes. The
biologist Lewis Thomas wrote, ‘Ants are so much like human beings as to be an
embarrassment. They farm fungi, raise aphids as livestock, launch armies to war, use
chemical sprays to alarm and confuse enemies, capture slaves, engage in child labour,
exchange information ceaselessly. They do everything but watch television.’
However, in ants there is no cultural transmission – everything must be encoded in the
genes – whereas in humans the opposite is true. Only basic instincts are carried in the
genes of a newborn baby, other skills being learned from others in the community as
the child grows up. It may seem that this cultural continuity gives us a huge advantage
over ants. They never mastered fire nor progressed. Their fungus farming and aphid
herding crafts are sophisticated when compared to the agricultural skills of humans
five thousand years ago but have been totally overtaken by modern human
agribusiness.
Or have they? The farming methods of ants are at least sustainable. They do not ruin
environments or use enormous amounts of energy. Moreover, recent evidence
suggests that the crop farming of ants may be more sophisticated and adaptable than
was thought.
Ants were farmers fifty million years before humans were. Ants can’t digest the
cellulose in leaves – but some fungi can. The ants therefore cultivate these fungi in
185
their nests, bringing them leaves to feed on, and then use them as a source of food.
Farmer ants secrete antibiotics to control other fungi that might act as ‘weeds’, and
spread waste to fertilize the crop.
It was once thought that the fungus that ants cultivate was a single type that they had
propagated, essentially unchanged from distant past. Not so. Ulrich Mueller of
Maryland and his colleagues genetically screened 862 different types of fungi taken
from ants’ nests. These turned out to be highly diverse: it seems that ants are
continually domesticating new species. Even more impressively, DNA analysis of the
fungi suggests that the ants improve or modify the fungi by regularly swapping and
sharing strains with neighbouring ant colonies.
Whereas prehistoric man had no exposure to urban lifestyle – the forcing house of
intelligence – the evidence suggests that ants have lived in urban settings for close on
a hundred million years, developing and maintaining underground cities of
specialized chambers and tunnels.
Task i.
Now answer the questions below. You are free to refer to the passage while answering
the questions in task ii and iii. Please circle, a, b, c, d, or e to indicate the answer that
you consider correct in the options provided. Please note that only one answer is
correct in the options, so you should circle only one answer per multiple-choice
question.
1. Which of the following phrases could be considered to represent the main idea
of the passage?
a. Ants’ agriculture
b. Ants’ intelligence
c. Ants’ communication
d. Ants’ farming
e. Ants’ culture
2. Which of these abilities, according to the passage distinguishes humans from
ants?
a. The ability to communicate.
b. The ability to transmit culture.
c. The ability to cultivate food.
d. The ability to make war.
e. The ability to exchange information.
3. Which of the following conclusions can be drawn from the passage?
a. Apes and monkeys are more intelligent than ants.
b. Humans are not more intelligent than ants.
c. Ants exhibit elements of human intelligence.
d. Apes and monkeys do not have the intelligence to farm like ants.
e. Human intelligence differs from ants’ intelligence.
4. According to the passage, which of the following statements is not true about
ants?
186
a. Ants’ agricultural skills are considered advanced because it does not
impact negatively on the environment.
b. Ants’ sophisticated agricultural skills enable them to cultivate different
types of their food.
c. Ants have sophisticated agricultural skills that are energy efficient.
d. Ants’ sophisticated farming skills are deemed to be very unsustainable.
e. Ants developed their sophisticated farming skill long before humans.
5. The phrase, Among These, found in line four makes reference to which of
these in the context that it was used?
a. The worlds of ants.
b. The sparks of ants’ cognition.
c. The creatures in animal kingdom.
d. The complex social lives of insects.
e. The intelligent members of animal kingdom.
6. Which of the following claims did the author make about human agriculture?
a. Human agriculture is not sophisticated.
b. Human agriculture is good for herding aphids.
c. Human agriculture is not good for the environment.
d. Human agriculture is energy efficient.
e. Human agriculture is not good for fungi farming.
7. According to the passage, which of the following represents ants’
communication?
a. Visual communication.
b. Audio-visual communication.
c. Sensory communication.
d. Audio communication.
e. Verbal communication.
8. Which is not true about ants’ sophisticated farming?
a. Ants cultivate a single type of fungus.
b. Ants were farmers million years ago.
c. Ants cultivate with fertilizer.
d. Ants control weeds in their farm.
e. Ants herd aphids.
9. Which are the main reasons, according to the passage, why ants could be
deemed intelligent?
a. Farming fungi and herding aphids.
b. Developing and maintaining underground cities.
c. Controlling weeds and using waste as fertilizer.
d. Farming, social life, and communication ability.
e. Storing food and repelling attackers.
10. What does the phrase ‘the forcing house of intelligence’ suggest in the context
it was used?
a. Ants used forced intelligence to develop their houses.
b. Intelligent prehistoric men were forced to live in houses.
187
c. Ants’ underground cities were intelligently built with force.
d. Prehistoric men forcefully developed urban life with intelligence.
e. Urban life enabled the development of intelligence.
Task ii.
The text below is a summary of the reading text you read earlier. Please complete the
summary using the list of words provided in the table below the summary. You are to
write only the correct letter, A – O, in the blank spaces in the summary. You are free
to refer to the passage while doing this task.
Ants have sophisticated methods of farming, including herding livestock and growing
crops, which are in many ways similar to those used in human agriculture. The ants
cultivate a large number of different species of edible fungi, which convert 11
………. into a form which they can digest. They use their own natural 12 ……… as
weed-killers and also use unwanted materials as 13 ……… . Genetic analysis shows
they constantly upgrade these fungi by developing new species and by 14 ………
species with neighbouring ant colonies. In fact, the farming methods of ants could be
said to be more advanced than human agribusiness, since they use 15 ………
methods.
A. aphids
E. energy
I. growing
M. secretions
B.
F.
J.
N.
agriculture
fertilizers
interbreeding
sustainable
C. cellulose
G. food
K. natural
O. environment
D. exchanging
H. fungi
L. other species
Instructions
Read the passage carefully, making sure you have a good understanding of the
passage.
Below the passage there are two different tasks, with different instructions. Please
follow the instructions provided for each task while doing the task.
Reading passage 2
In general, it is plausible to suppose that we should prefer peace and quiet to noise.
And yet most of us have had the experience of having to adjust to sleeping in the
mountains or the countryside because it was initially ‘too quiet’, an experience that
suggests that humans are capable of adapting to a wide range of noise levels.
Research supports this view. For example, Glass and Singer (1972) exposed people to
short bursts of very loud noise and then measured their ability to work out problems
and their physiological reactions to the noise. The noise was quite disruptive at first,
but after about four minutes the subjects were doing just as well on their tasks as
control subjects who were not exposed to noise. Their physiological arousal also
declined quickly to the same levels as those of the control subjects.
188
But there are limits to adaptation and loud noise becomes more troublesome if the
person is required to concentrate on more than one task. For example, high noise
levels interfered with the performance of subjects who were required to monitor three
dials at a time, a task not unlike that of an aeroplane pilot or an air-traffic controller
(Broadbent, 1957). Similarly, noise did not affect a subject’s ability to track line with
a steering wheel, but it did interfere with the subject’s ability to repeat numbers while
tracking (Finkelman and Glass, 1970).
Probably the most significant finding from research on noise is that its predictability
is more important than how loud it is. We are much more able to ‘tune out’ chronic
background noise, even if it is quite loud, than to work under circumstance with
unexpected intrusions of noise. In Glass and Singer study, in which subjects were
exposed to bursts of noise as they worked on a task, some subjects heard loud bursts
and others heard soft bursts. For some subjects, the bursts were spaced exactly one
minute apart (predictable noise); others heard the same amount of noise overall, but
the bursts occurred at random intervals (unpredictable noise). Subjects reported
finding the predictable and unpredictable noise equally annoying, and all subjects
performed at about the same level during the noise portion of the experiment. But the
different noise conditions had quite different after-effect when the subjects were
required to proofread written material under conditions of no noise. The unpredictable
noise produced more errors in the later proofreading task than predictable noise; and
soft, unpredictable noise actually produced slightly more errors on this task than the
loud, predictable noise.
Apparently, unpredictable noise produces more fatigue than predictable noise, but it
takes a while for this to take its toll on performance.
Predictability is not the only variable that reduces or eliminates the negative effects of
noise. Another is control. If the individual knows that he or she can control the noise,
this seems to eliminate both its negative effects at the time and its after-effects. This is
true even if individual never actually exercises his or her option to turn the noise off
(Glass and Singer, 1972). Just the knowledge that one has control is sufficient.
The studies discussed so far exposed people to noise for only short periods and only
transient effects were studied. But the major worry about noisy environments is that
living day after day with chronic noise may produce serious, lasting effects. One
study, suggesting that this worry is a realistic one, compared elementary school pupils
who attended schools near Los Angeles’s busiest airport with students who attended
schools in quiet neighborhoods (Cohen et al., 1980). It was found that children from
noisy schools had higher blood pressure and were more easily distracted than those
who attended the quiet schools.
Task i.
Now answer the questions below. You are free to refer to the passage while answering
the questions in task ii and iii. Please circle, a, b, c, d, or e to indicate the answer that
you consider correct in the options provided. Please note that only one answer is
correct in the options, so you should circle only one answer per multiple-choice
question.
189
1. The writer suggests that people may have difficulty sleeping in the mountains
because
a. humans do not prefer peace and quiet to noise.
b. they may be exposed to short bursts of very strange sounds.
c. humans prefer to hear a certain amount of noise while they sleep.
d. they may have adapted to a higher noise level in the city.
e. humans are scared of the quiet and peace in the mountains.
2. In noise experiments, Glass and Singer found that
a. problem-solving is much easier under quiet conditions.
b. physiological arousal prevents the ability to work.
c. bursts of noise do not seriously disrupt problem-solving in the long term.
d. the physiological arousal of control subjects declined quickly.
e. unexpected noise intrusion is not a problem in problem-solving conditions.
3. Researchers discovered that high noise levels are not likely to interfere with
the
a. successful performance of a single task.
b. tasks of pilots or air traffic controllers.
c. ability to repeat number while tracking moving lines.
d. ability to monitor three dials at once.
e. successful performance on a multiple task.
4. According to the passage, people are less able to work in conditions
a. where they are able to predict noise.
b. where they are able to control noise.
c. where they are unable to predict noise.
d. where the background noise is quite loud.
e. where they are exposed to no noise.
5. The statement, ‘subjects exposed to noise find it difficult at first to concentrate
on problem-solving tasks’ is attributed to which of these researchers?
a. Glass and Singer
b. Broadbent
c. Finkelman and Glass
d. Cohen et al.
e. None of the above
6. According to the passage, in how many ways can humans control the adverse
effect of noise on performance?
a. In 3 ways.
b. In 2 ways.
c. In 4 ways.
d. In 6 ways.
e. In 5 ways.
7. Which of the researchers found permanent effect for noise on humans?
a. Cohen et al. (1980).
b. Finkelman and Glass (1970).
c. Glass and Singer (1972).
190
d. Broadbent (1957).
e. None.
8. Which of the following statements best reflects the author’s view on noise?
a. Noise could affect performance in every condition.
b. Humans could function well in every noise condition.
c. Humans function well in noise conditions they could predict or control.
d. Noise could affect the performance of elementary school pupils.
e. Noise could affect performance only if intense.
9. The phrase control subjects refer to which of the following in the context it
was used in the passage?
a. Subjects exposed to short burst of noise.
b. Subjects that worked in silence.
c. Subjects that monitored three dials.
d. Subjects that could not repeat numbers while tracking.
e. Subjects that could be controlled.
10. According to the passage, individuals could be able to do away with the short
and long term negative effect of noise,
a. if the noise is predictable.
b. if the noise is controllable.
c. if the noise is unpredictable.
d. if the noise is indispensible.
e. if the noise is uncontrollable.
Task ii.
The text below is a summary of the reading text you read earlier. Please complete the
summary using the list of words provided in the table below the summary. You are to
write only the correct letter, A – J, in the blank spaces in the summary. You are free to
refer to the passage while doing this task. You may use any letter more than once.
Glass and Singer (1972) showed that situation in which there is intense noise have
less effect on performance than circumstance in which 11……… noise occurs.
Subjects were divided into groups to perform a task. Some heard loud bursts of noise,
others soft. For some subjects, the noise was predictable, while for others its
occurrence was random. All groups were exposed to 12……… noise. The predictable
noise group 13……… the unpredictable noise group on this task.
In the second part of the experiment, the four groups were given a proofreading task
to complete under conditions of no noise. They were required to check written
material for errors. The group, which had been, exposed to unpredictable noise
14……… the group, which had been exposed to predictable noise. The group, which
had been exposed to loud predictable noise, performed better than those who had
heard soft, unpredictable bursts. The results suggest that 15……… noise produces
fatigue but that this manifests itself later.
A. no control over
C. intense
E. performed better than
B. unexpected
D. the same amount of
F. performed at about the same level as
191
G. no
I. made more mistakes than
H. showed more irritation than
J. different types of
Chapter 5
5.
Summary, synthesis and prospect
While explaining the inconsistent findings in studies that investigated the LIH,
Cummins (1976) observed that transferability of L1 academic skills to L2 is most
likely to occur in ‘additive bilingual’ situations (where competent L1 readers are also
gaining competence in L2 reading) than in ‘subtractive bilingual’ situations (where L1
reading competence is diminishing in favour of L2 reading competence). Several
previous investigations conducted in EFL contexts, with ‘additive bilingual’ readers,
have suggested a positive relationship between reading comprehension performance
in L1 and L2, and cognitive and metacognitive strategies used while processing texts
in the languages. However, the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive
processing and reading comprehension performance in L1 and L2 had not been
examined in ESL contexts where English is a lingua franca, and readers therefore
could better be described as ‘subtractive bilinguals’. Although the current study was
not designed to test this assumption, it is being viewed that Cummins’ position
suggests that L1 and L2 reading in EFL and ESL contexts may diverge. Deliberate
investigation of L1 and L2 text processing in an ESL context is warranted to be able
to provide broader understanding of reading in L1 and L2 in EFL and ESL contexts.
This thesis therefore investigated cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in first and
second language text processing among Igbo ESL readers in Nigeria. It focused
particularly on the effect of cognitive and metacognitive processes on L1 and L2
reading comprehension performance.
192
193
The effect of L2 language proficiency and vocabulary size on cognitive and
metacognitive processes during L2 text processing was also investigated. Previous
investigations on the role of L2 proficiency on cognitive and metacognitive processes
yielded conflicting results. Some researchers claim that L2 language proficiency plays
a role in cognitive and metacognitive processing, while others suggested that L2
language proficiency play no role in cognitive and metacognitive processing. It is
however unfortunate that in many of these studies, L2 proficiency was not explicitly
measured. In respect of the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive
processes and L2 vocabulary size during L2 text processing, not much is known given
that the only study which explored this relationship (Al-Nujaidi, 2003) in an EFL
context tended to measure the EFL readers’ ‘trait’ cognitive and metacognitive
strategies, rather than the ‘state’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by the
readers during the reading test.
In this chapter, the results from three studies reported in chapters 2, 3, and 4
are summarized and evaluated. Then a synthesis of the results from the three studies is
conducted to draw some general conclusions on cognitive and metacognitive
processes in L1 and L2 text processing as it affects this group of ESL readers.
5.1.
Summary
The first article in the thesis – reported in Chapter 2 – was guided by the hypotheses
that this group of Igbo L1 readers, who are not highly skilled readers in their native
language, will report the use of more metacognitive strategies to process Igbo texts,
which will have a significant positive effect on their reading comprehension
performance in Igbo text processing. These hypotheses were based on previous L1
reading studies with additive bilinguals readers in EFL contexts that have suggested
194
that readers, particularly at higher-grade levels reported more frequent use of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies, which had a significant effect on their reading
comprehension performance (Schoonen et al., 1998; Tercanlioglu, 2004; Young &
Oxford, 1997). Therefore three research questions were formulated to explore the
hypotheses as follows:
1: Which are the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used during Igbo reading
tasks by native speakers of Igbo enrolled in a teacher-training programme in Nigeria?
2: What is the relative effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on these
participants’ reading comprehension?
3: Which cluster of strategies (cognitive or metacognitive) did readers report using
most frequently while processing Igbo texts?
To answer the research questions, a study was conducted with a group of Igbo
native speakers studying in a teacher trainees’ college in Nigeria. Reading
comprehension ability in Igbo was tested, and strategies used by the readers to aid
comprehension during the reading test were measured using a strategy questionnaire.
It was expected, based on the hypotheses set for the study that this group of Igbo
readers will report more metacognitive than cognitive strategy use, and that
metacognitive strategy use will have significant positive effect on their reading
comprehension performance. It turned out that the first hypothesis was not supported
for this group of L1 readers because their reported use of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies did not differ significantly. However, the second hypothesis was supported
as metacognitive strategy use contributed significantly to their reading comprehension
performance, while cognitive strategy use did not. Therefore, with respect to the first
hypothesis, it was concluded to the contrary that cognitive and metacognitive
strategies were used at similar rates during the reading text, whereas in respect of the
195
second hypothesis it was concluded that metacognitive strategy use particularly aided
reading comprehension in Igbo.
Subsequently, the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on
reading comprehension performance in ESL reading, and the role of second language
vocabulary size and proficiency in the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
during ESL reading was explored in chapter 3. This study was motivated by the
hypothesis that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use will have a significant
positive effect on reading comprehension performance. It was also hypothesized that
L2 proficiency will have a positive and significant relationship with cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use in L2 reading comprehension of the Igbo native speakers,
and that vocabulary knowledge will positively and significantly relate with cognitive
and metacognitive strategy use during L2 text processing. The first hypothesis was
inspired by previous studies in EFL contexts (e.g., Nergis, 2013; Phakiti, 2003a,
2003b), which suggest that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use significantly
contribute to reading comprehension performance. The second hypothesis derives
from previous studies with EFL readers (e.g. Bernhardt, 2000; Ghafournia & Afghari,
2013; Zhang & Wu, 2009) claiming that L2 proficiency contributes to cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use in L2 reading comprehension, and the third hypothesis
derives from a claim in the only study (Al-Nujaidi, 2003) that previously investigated
the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and vocabulary size
in EFL setting, in which strategy use was measured as ‘trait’ strategy use. AlNujaidi’s study suggests that cognitive strategy use is related with vocabulary size.
Three research questions were therefore formulated to enable the investigation of
these hypotheses as follows:
196
1. Which are the RCSs used by teacher training students who are native speakers of
Igbo, during L2 reading tasks?
2. What is the relative effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on reading
comprehension for the Igbo ESL speakers?
3. Which is the relative effect of L2 vocabulary size, and L2 proficiency levels on the
cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by teacher training students, who are
native speakers of Igbo, during L2 reading?
A study with a group of Igbo ESL readers enrolled in a teacher trainee college
in Nigeria was therefore conducted to provide answers to these research questions. In
the study, the participants did reading comprehension tasks in English; strategies used
to process the L2 texts were measured with a reading strategies questionnaire. The L2
proficiency of the participants was tested with the grammar part of the Oxford
Placement Test (Allan, 2004), while the participants’ vocabulary size was measured
with the Vocabulary Size Test (Nation & Beglar, 2007). Based on the hypotheses that
motivated the study, it was expected that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, as
in previous studies, would have significant positive effect on reading comprehension
performance of the readers. It was also hoped that L2 proficiency would have a
positive and significant relationship with cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in
L2 reading comprehension of the Igbo native speakers, as was the case in some
previous EFL studies. And in contrast with Al-Nujaidi’s findings, it was anticipated
that vocabulary knowledge would positively and significantly relate with both
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during L2 text processing. However,
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use did not contribute significantly to reading
comprehension performance of this group of ESL readers, and their L2 language
proficiency was also not related with their cognitive and metacognitive strategy use
197
during L2 text processing. Therefore, the first two hypotheses were not supported.
However, the study, as Al-Nujaidi (2003), found that high cognitive strategy use was
significantly related with high vocabulary size. This finding suggests that the
hypothesis on the relationship between these variables was partly correct for the ESL
readers in the study.
The effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on ESL learners’
reading comprehension performance was reexamined in chapter 4. Previous L1 and
L2 studies have consistently claimed that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use
significantly contributes to reading performance (e.g., Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b;
Schoonen et al., 1998), which however was not supported by the finding in the study
reported in chapter 3, casting some doubt on the veracity of the claim in the study.
The decision was therefore taken to conduct another study, in which in depth
reexamination of the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on the reading
performance of Igbo ESL learners would be carried out. Therefore as the studies
reported in chapters 2 and 3, the study in chapter 4 was also motivated by the
hypothesis that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use would have significant
positive effect on reading comprehension performance of the ESL readers, as was the
case in previous L1 and L2 studies (e.g., Schoonen et al., 1998; Shoerey & Mokhtari,
2001; van Gelderen et al., 2007). And as has previously been reported (e.g. Phakiti,
2003, 2008), it was also hypothesized that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use
would distinguish high and low achievers in ESL reading comprehension. The effect
of the L2 learning context (i.e. ESL context where English is a lingua franca, and not
a foreign language) on the strategic behaviour of Igbo ESL readers was also
anticipated. Three research questions were therefore formulated to explore these
hypotheses thus:
198
1. Which are the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by this group of ESL
learners during the English reading tasks?
2. What is the relative effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use on the
participants’ RC performance in English?
3. Did high achievers in the RC test differ from low achiever in the use of cognitive
and metacognitive strategies?
4. Which strategy item was most frequently used, and least frequently used during the
RC test?
Another study with a group of Igbo ESL readers drawn from two tertiary
institutions in Nigeria was therefore conducted to provide answers to these research
questions. Reading comprehension performance was measured with another set of
reading comprehension tasks in English, while cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use was still measured with the same strategy questionnaire used for the study in
chapter 3. On the basis of the hypotheses that motivated the study it was expected that
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, as has previously been reported, would have
significant positive effect on reading comprehension performance of Igbo ESL
readers in the study. The second expectation was that high achievers would report
higher frequency of use for cognitive and metacognitive strategies than the low
achievers in the reading task, while the third expectation was that the reported use of
some strategy items in the study could suggest effect of the ESL context in which the
study was conducted. As the first hypothesis predicted, and in contradiction to the
finding reported for the study in chapter 3, the combination of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use significantly and positively contributed to reading
comprehension performance of the ESL readers in the study, although only
metacognitive strategy use uniquely contributed significantly to performance in the
199
reading comprehension task. It also turned out that as the second hypothesis holds,
high achievers on the reading comprehension task reported higher frequency usage for
cognitive and metacognitive strategies during the reading task. And as was anticipated
in the third hypothesis, the effect of ESL context on strategy use was suggested by the
low rating of the use of translation strategy by participants. Contrary to findings
reported in many previous studies (e.g. Kern, 1994; Yau, 2009) with EFL readers on
the popularity of translation strategy among EFL readers, the study again as in chapter
3, reported that the readers never used translation strategy during the reading task. On
the strength of these findings, the study concluded that high frequency use of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies in ESL reading comprehension is essential for
improved performance in reading comprehension, and it also has the capacity to
distinguish high achievers from low achievers in reading comprehension tasks. The
study also concluded that there is a chance that the use of translation as a reading
strategy is context sensitive.
The next section presents a synthesis of the findings in all the three studies
with a view to running some comparative analysis between them in order to draw
some broad conclusions on cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L1 and L2
reading comprehension.
5.2.
Synthesis and conclusions
The articles in this thesis have provided some insight into how cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use could affect reading in the L1 (Igbo) and L2 (English) for
a group of Igbo native speakers in Nigeria. However, the finding in chapter 3, which
suggested that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use do not significantly
contribute to performance in reading comprehension was curious as it is contrary to
200
claims in many previous studies (e.g. Phakiti, 2003a, 2003b, 2008; Schoonen et al.,
1998; van Gelderen at al., 2007). Although few studies (e.g. Guo & Roehrig, 2011)
made a similar claim, the study reported in chapter 4 was conducted to ensure that
sound and valid conclusions are reached. As it turned out, cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use significantly contributed to performance in reading
comprehension in the study reported in chapter 4, contrary to the finding of the study
in chapter 3. The conflicting findings in the two studies raises question as to whether
or not the L2 reader’s cognitive and metacognitive strategy use varied in relation to
performance at different reading tasks situations. It is important to note that the mean
performance of participants on the reading comprehension task in the study reported
in chapter 3 (M = 35, SD = 12.53) appears substantially lower than the mean
performance of participants on the reading comprehension task in the study reported
in chapter 4 (M = 53.2, SD = 16.49). Therefore it is hypothesized that if cognitive and
metacognitive strategy use substantially contributes to performance in reading
comprehension tasks, higher usage rates for cognitive and metacognitive strategies
would be reported for the reading comprehension task in the study reported in chapter
4 in which reading performance was higher.
To test the hypothesis, a decision was made to assess whether or not the tvalues obtained in the t-tests comparing cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in
the two studies yielded similar or dissimilar t-values, since the issue of assumed
unequal variance and unequal sample size could not permit direct statistical
comparison between the variables. The visual inspection of Figure 2, which is a chart
indicating cognitive and metacognitive strategies used during reading tasks in studies
in chapter 3 and 4, suggests higher frequency of use for cognitive and metacognitive
201
strategies during reading tasks in the study in chapter 4 in contrast with the study in
chapter 3, which indicates lower frequency of use for the strategies.
Fig. 2. Average ratings of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use for reading tasks
in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4
4
3.5
3
Cognitivestrategyuseinchapter3
2.5
Cognitivestrategyuseinchapter4
2
1.5
Metacognitivestrategyuseinchapter3
1
0.5
Metacognitivestrategyuseinchapter4
0
However, there is no way of telling, whether or not this perceived visual difference is
significant.
To address this concern, a second layer of analysis was conducted in which
perceived cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in the study reported in Chapter 3,
as well as in the study reported in Chapter 4 was compared with t-tests. This analysis
was to enable a decision to be made on whether or not cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use for this group of ESL readers differed in relation to performance on the
reading tasks. It was decided that if the t-tests comparing cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use for reading tasks in Chapter 3 and 4 should yield similar t-values (i.e.
both yielding either significant or non significant t-values), it would be interpreted as
202
indicating that variation in performance observed between the two reading tasks may
not be attributed to cognitive and metacognitive strategy use. However, if on the other
hand the t-tests yield dissimilar t-values (i.e. one yielding significant t-value, while
the other yields non-significant t-value), it would then be interpreted as indicating that
the observed variation in performance in reading comprehension between the two
studies could be attributed to the frequency of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
reported used during the reading tasks. The assumption is that if the variation
observed in the reading comprehension performance of the ESL readers between the
two studies may not be attributed to the reported frequency of use for cognitive and
metacognitive strategies, the t-test result should then be similar otherwise it should be
assumed that the variation between performance in the reading tasks could be a
function of the varied frequency of cognitive and metacognitive processes underlying
the processing of texts in the two reading conditions.
The result of the paired sample t-test, which compared reported use of
cognitive strategies with reported use of metacognitive strategies during text
processing in study 1, indicated that the reported use of metacognitive strategies
during text processing in study 1 (M = 2.91, SD = .578) was not significantly higher
than the reported use of cognitive strategies (M = 2.89, SD = .627), t (24) = -.121, p >
.05. Whereas the paired samples t-test result comparing reported use of cognitive
strategies with metacognitive strategies during text processing in study 2 indicated
that the reported use of metacognitive strategies during text processing in study 2 (M
= 3.61, SD = .718) was significantly higher than reported use of cognitive strategies
(M = 2.99, SD = .612), t (79) = 8.31, p < .000. Therefore, on the basis of the fact that
participants in the study in chapter 4 reported significantly higher use of
metacognitive strategies than participants in the study reported in chapter 3, it could
203
be concluded that higher frequency use for metacognitive strategies may have
accounted for the variability in reading comprehension performance observed
between the study in Chapter 3 and 4 in the thesis. While readers in the study Chapter
3 tended to have employed cognitive and metacognitive strategies at equal rates
during text processing, readers in the study Chapter 4 employed significantly higher
frequency use of metacognitive strategies to process texts. As such it could be
assumed that high frequency use of metacognitive strategy may have accounted for
variability in the reading performance of the ESL readers in the two studies. The
implication therefore is that reading performance in the study in Chapter 3 would
have been better had the frequency of metacognitive strategy use been higher. This
finding corroborates the claim that metacognitive processing is important for reading
comprehension in the L2 (Nergis, 2013; van Gelderen et al., 2004).
The conclusions that could be drawn from the studies reported in this thesis is
that in L1 and L2 reading, context could be important in determining cognitive and
metacognitive processes that readers employ, and how they employ those processes.
Therefore cognitive and metacognitive processes during text processing in L1 and L2
in an EFL context may differ for ESL readers in contexts where English is a lingua
franca. Where such readers appear to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies at
similar rates while processing L1 texts, they tend to use higher rates of metacognitive
strategies to process L2 texts.
Secondly, high frequency of metacognitive strategy use would almost
certainly guarantee better performance on reading comprehension tasks whether in the
L1 or L2. But the inability to substantially use metacognitive strategies during text
processing tends to diminish performance in reading comprehension.
204
Thirdly, L2 language proficiency did not significantly facilitate cognitive and
metacognitive processing in L2 text processing. This suggests that strategic ability
may not be influenced by linguistic knowledge. The two are therefore unrelated as the
study in chapter 3 indicates.
Fourthly, the ESL readers’ vocabulary size is important in determining
readers’ ability to utilize cognitive strategies. High use of cognitive strategies was
associated with higher vocabulary size. Therefore ESL readers found to have high
vocabulary size in English tended to use cognitive strategies to a higher degree.
Lastly, translation strategy could be context sensitive and is most likely to be
used by readers in EFL contexts as opposed to ESL reading contexts where English is
a lingua franca. Therefore, it may be necessary in the future not to label this strategy
as strategy used in L2 reading, but rather as strategy used by L2 readers who are
‘additive bilingual’ readers.
5.3.
Limitations of the studies
At this juncture it may be necessary to observe that studies reported in this thesis are
generally plagued with some limitations, which makes it necessary to advise that
caution should be applied in interpreting some of the findings. One limitation of the
studies in this thesis is the use of one single instrument to elicit data on reading
strategy use, which potentially could have reduced the validity of the findings in the
studies. Single data elicitation method has been found to suffer from measurement
bias leading to current preference for multiple data elicitation methods in research.
Therefore, it is being assumed that the use of multiple strategy elicitation methods
could have increased the validity of the findings of the studies because it could have
checked the measurement bias concerns created by the use of a single data elicitation
205
method. In recent times, the popular position in research is that multiple data
elicitation method enables the testing of validity of findings by converging
information from different sources on a particular phenomenon (Carter, et al., 2014;
Denzin, 1970; Doyle, et al., 2016; Lynch, 1996). In studies reported in this thesis, the
use of an additional strategy elicitation method for confirmatory purposes, particularly
relating to the research results and conclusions, or the appropriateness of the strategy
questionnaire used to elicit data in the studies, could have been ideal. This however
was not possible due to the challenges encountered by the researcher while trying to
elicit data using alternative data elicitation methods during the pilot study (see chapter
one for details).
Another limitation of studies in the thesis, particularly the ones reported in
Chapter 2 and 3, derives from sample size. Small sample bias could be a concern in
these studies given that it has been suggested that small sample sizes in research can
detect large effect size, which could lead a researcher to committing a type II error by
rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is actually correct (Field,
2013). In other words, small sample size has the tendency to increase the chance that
a researcher would assume as true a false premise. In this case, it is probably right to
advise that caution should be applied in interpreting some aspects of the findings of
studies reported in chapter 2 and 3. Of particular concern are aspects of the study that
examined the differential in the relationship between reading comprehension
performance and cognitive and metacognitive strategy use of high and low achievers
in reading comprehension tasks. Splitting of groups in those studies could have
resulted in using small sample sizes for the analyses conducted, which may prevent
some findings in such studies from being extrapolated.
206
Studies reported in this thesis did not explore the role that L1 literacy of the
participants could have played in their L2 reading strategy use. This is also considered
a limitation of the thesis. Several studies with EFL readers have indicated that L1
literacy levels relate to L2 reading strategy use (e.g. Upton and Lee-Thompson, 2001;
van Gelderen et al., 2007). Within the linguistic interdependency (LI) school of
thought, there is a strong belief that readers transfer their L1 literacy skills and
strategies to L2 reading. Many of the studies reviewed in the thesis provided support
for this position. However, it was also clear that most of these studies were with EFL
readers, and not ESL readers. Therefore examining the role that L1 literacy of the
ESL readers in the thesis could have played in their strategy use during L2 reading
tasks could have provided additional insight into the nature of L2 reading strategy
use. The researcher did not however conduct this examination because the studies
reported in this thesis were not intended to test the LIH or LTH.
5.4.
Implications of the studies
The above-mentioned limitations notwithstanding, the three studies reported in this
thesis still have some positive implications for the teaching of reading in first and
second languages, particularly Igbo and English in Nigerian schools. For example,
these studies have demonstrated that even in Nigerian classrooms, the role that
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use plays in enhancing performance in reading
comprehension tasks in first and second language can no longer be overlooked.
Talking from experience as a teacher, it is often not clear to teachers, particularly
language teachers in Nigerian classrooms why some readers struggle to comprehend
written texts. As a result, language teachers in Nigeria are often faced with the
‘maddening experience of having a student who appears to understand every sentence
207
and yet cannot answer the simplest question about a passage as a whole’ (Eskey,
1973: 177). These studies therefore draw the attention of teachers, who have very
often found themselves in this difficult situation, to the fact that such students could
probably be helped to comprehend written texts better if only they could be instructed
on how to effectively use cognitive and metacognitive strategies during reading.
Several studies (e.g. Akkakoson, 2013; Dabarera et al., 2014) have indicated that
strategy instruction facilitates effective use of reading strategies, which resulted in
improved students’ performance in reading comprehension tasks. Hence L1 and L2
teachers in Nigeria could therefore move away from the traditional method of
teaching reading and adopt a pragmatic approach in which strategy instruction is
considered vital in teaching reading.
In addition to having positive implication on how teachers teach reading in L1
and L2, particularly in Nigerian schools, the study reported in chapter 3 has
substantial implication for the teaching of L2 vocabulary to L2 readers. The study
suggests a strong relationship between L2 readers’ vocabulary size and the rate at
which they use cognitive strategies. Readers with high vocabulary size reported more
frequent use of cognitive strategies, while readers with low vocabulary size reported
less frequent use of these strategies. The implication is that the teaching of L2
vocabulary could potentially increase L2 readers’ use of cognitive strategies, which in
turn could facilitate RC performance during L2 reading tasks. As language teachers
become aware of these developments, assisting L2 readers to have better
comprehension of written texts would become less challenging to language teachers.
For example, the L2 teacher that is aware of the relationship between vocabulary size
and cognitive strategy use needs not to be told of the need to the students L2
vocabulary and cognitive and metacognitive strategy use.
208
Future research
5.5.
By investigating cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L1 and L2 reading
comprehension with teacher trainees and undergraduate students in a context where
English is a lingua franca, this thesis has provided insight into text processing among
this group of ESL readers. We now know that cognitive and metacognitive ability
may not be contingent on L2 language proficiency of the readers in the study, high
vocabulary size is related to high use of cognitive strategies by the readers, and that
the group of readers in this study do not use translation strategy during reading. Each
one of these findings raises some unanswered questions that call for further
investigations in the future.
For example, the claims in the study about the ESL readers’ use of cognitive
and metacognitive processes during L1 and L2 texts processing, were based on the
analysis of self-reported cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by the readers
during the reading tasks. Given social desirability concerns with self-report
questionnaires like the one used in the study, would those claims be reaffirmed if a
more objective measurement tool were employed to elicit data? On the basis of this
question, it would be interesting to use a more objective method, e.g. eye tracking, to
investigate text processing in L1 and L2 among this group of ESL readers. Such
future study would focus on processing speed in Igbo and English, and how reading
comprehension is affect by this factor. To be able to make a broader claim that L1 and
L2 text processing diverge in contexts where English is a lingua franca, it is proposed
that such future study would include participants from other major linguistic groups in
Nigeria.
209
It is also envisaged that a eye tracking study would provide a more objective
conclusion on whether or not L2 language proficiency bears any relationship with text
processing in the L2. In the current study, it is claimed that no relationship exists
between cognitive and metacognitive processing and L2 language proficiency. The
question is; how tenable is this claim given that cognitive and metacognitive
processes were measured with self-report questionnaire? Although similar claims had
been made in previous studies, and those studies, like the current one, were also
plagued with methodological constraints (e.g. inability to explicitly measure L2
proficiency, as well as the use of self-report questionnaires to elicit data on strategy
use), leading them to draw conflicting conclusions on the relationship between L2
proficiency and the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to process L2 texts.
The eye tracking methodological consideration has the potential to provide more
objective assessment of readers’ online cognitive processes, which could then be
correlated with their explicitly measured L2 language proficiency to draw more
acceptable conclusions on the relationship between L2 language proficiency and
cognitive strategies in L2 text processing.
There is also need to further explore the use of translation strategy in a largescale study involving ESL readers from the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria.
Such a large-scale study will potentially reveal whether the use of the cognitive
strategy of translation is actually a strategic trait associated with EFL readers, and not
ESL readers in contexts where English is a lingua franca, as the current study
suggests. Or whether the inability to use the cognitive strategy of translation could be
a strategic trait associated with only the Igbo native speakers in Nigeria, and therefore
should not be generalized to other ESL readers in Nigeria or elsewhere that English is
a lingua franca. The cognitive strategy of translation or metal translation, as Kern
210
(1994) refers to it, has widely been reported as a strategy popular with reading in the
L2. But most studies that reported the use of this strategy among L2 readers were
conducted with ‘additive bilingual’ readers. As an Igbo ESL reader myself, I find it
difficult to believe that L2 readers translate into their L1 to make meaning. This is a
strategy that I have never used in reading, and I believe that most Igbo ESL readers
are not likely to use this strategy too, as this study has indicated. However, it may not
be the case with native speaker of other native languages in Nigeria, who sometimes
appear keener to speak and read in their L1 than the Igbo native speakers. It is
therefore on the basis of this background that I am looking forward to conducting a
study that will include ESL readers from the three major Nigerian languages, in which
reading is taught, to thoroughly investigate the phenomenon of translating from L2 to
L1 to construct meaning in the L2. Such study will provide better understanding about
how this cognitive strategy relates to L2 text processing. It also would be interesting
to know if this strategy actually leads to meaningful comprehension among readers
who use it. The question is; how could readers with limited ability to comprehend the
L2 text manage to ‘successfully’ translate into the L1 the L2 text that the readers find
challenging to comprehend, particularly when their L1 and L2 share no historical
links?
Lastly, the role that cognitive and metacognitive strategy use could play
during reading comprehension is probably well established. However, the question of
which other factors, apart from proficiency, could affect the use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies among L2 readers needs to be explored further. As such,
investigating how factors like the L2 reader’s reading motivation and working
memory capacity could affect the use of these strategies forms part of my future
research. Within the framework of the proposed research, it is hoped that how
211
variables like L2 language proficiency, vocabulary size, reading motivation, and
working memory capacity relate and interact with cognitive and metacognitive
processes during L2 text processing would be explored. The aim being to model
cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in L2 text processing based on readers
individual differences, which is hoped would provide deeper understanding of
cognitive and metacognitive processes underlying text processing in L2.
212
References
5.6.
Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student
learning of L2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal
of Research in Reading , 36 (4), 422-450.
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 2: Test Pack. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Al-Nujaidi, A. H. (2003). The relationship between vocabulary size, reading
strategies, and reading comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. UMI
Dissertations (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis) Oklahoma State University .
Bernhardt, E. B. (2000). Second language reading as a case study of reading
scholarship in the twentieth century. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, D. Pearson,
& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. III, pp. 793-811).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The
use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum , 41 (5),
545-547.
Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis
of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on
Bilingualism , 9, 1-43.
Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive
scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System , 42, 462-473.
Denzin, N. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.
Doyle, L., Brandy, A., & Byrne, G. (2016). An overview of mixed methods research revisited. Journal of Research in Nursing , 21 (8), 623-635.
213
Eskey, D. E. (1973). A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of
English as a foreign language. Language Learning , 23 (2), 169-184.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th edition).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ghafournia, N., & Afghari, A. (2013). Relationship between reading proficiency,
strategic competence, and reading comprehension test performance: A study
of Iranian EFL learners. International Educational Studies , 6 (8), 21-30.
Guo, Y., & Roehrig, A. D. (2011). Roles of general versus second language (L2)
knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Lnaguage , 23
(1), 42-64.
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition , 16 (4), 441-461.
Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language Program Evaluation: Theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher , 31
(7), 9-13.
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP
learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12 (1), 1-9.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language
Learning , 53 (4), 649-702.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive
strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing ,
20 (1), 26-56.
214
Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer's (1996) strategic
competence model over time in EFL reading test. Language Testing , 25 (2),
237-272.
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific
knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An
empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8, and 10. Language
Learning , 48 (1), 71-106.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System , 29 (4), 431449.
Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students' use of reading strategies in L1 and
ESL contexts: Links to success. International Education Journal , 5 (4), 562570.
Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second
language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 23 (4), 469-495.
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijin, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P.,
et al. (2004). Lingguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive
knowledge in first and second language reading comprehension: A
componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 (1), 19-30.
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R., Glopper, K., & Hulstijin, J. (2007).
Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and
language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of
Educational Psychology , 99 (3), 477-491.
215
Yau, J.-l. C. (2009). Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents:
Knowledge and application of strategic reading. Metacognition and Learning ,
4 (3), 217-235.
Young, D. J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to
process written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied
Language Learning , 8, 43-73.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students'
metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign
Language , 21 (1), 37-59.
216
Appendix A: Cognitive and metacognitive strategies questionnaire
REG. NO. _______________________________________
Directions: Below are a number of statements that describe some of the things people
do when they are taking a reading test. Read each statement and indicate how you
thought during the test. Please feel free to take a look at the passage as you answer the
questionnaire. Choose 1 (Never), 2 (Sometimes), 3(Often), 4(Usually), and
5(Always).
Your thinking
1. I translated the reading text and tasks into Igbo
to enhance my understanding
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
7. I checked my answers as I progress in the test
1
2
3
4
5
8. I corrected mistakes immediately when found
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10. I was aware of the need to plan a course of action 1
2
3
4
5
2. I tried to understand the text and questions
regardless of my vocabulary knowledge
3. I tried to find topics and main ideas of the
passage without reading it in detail
4. I read the text and questions several times
to better understand them
5. I used my prior knowledge to help understand
the text
6. I was aware of what and how I was doing
in the test
9. I determined what the test questions require
me to do
217
11. I tried to understand the questions adequately before
attempting to answer
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
12. I was aware of selected strategies to help me
complete the test questions before solving them
13. I checked my accuracy as I progressed through
the test
14. I identified relevant information in the text to help
me understand the text and answer the questions
218
219
Appendix B: Oxford placement test
220
221
222
223
224
Appendix C: Vocabulary size test
Vocabulary Size Test1
Circle the letter a-d with the closest meaning to the key
word in the question.
Second 1000
1.
MAINTAIN: Can they maintain it?
a. keep it as it is
b. make it larger
c. get a better one than it
d. get it
1.
SEE: They saw it.
a. cut
b. waited for
c. looked at
d. started
2.
TIME: They have a lot of time.
a. money
b. food
c. hours
d. friends
2.
STONE: He sat on a stone.
a. hard thing
b. kind of chair
c. soft thing on the floor
d. part of a tree
3.
PERIOD: It was a difficult period.
a. question
b. time
c. thing to do
d. book
3.
UPSET: I am upset.
a. tired
b. famous
c. rich
d. unhappy
4.
FIGURE: Is this the right figure?
a. answer
b. place
c. time
d. number
4.
DRAWER: The drawer was empty.
a. sliding box
b. place where cars are kept
c. cupboard to keep things cold
d. animal house
5.
POOR: We are poor.
a. have no money
b. feel happy
c. are very interested
d. do not like to work hard
5.
PATIENCE: He has no patience.
a. will not wait happily
b. has no free time
c. has no faith
d. does not know what is fair
6.
DRIVE: He drives fast.
a. swims
b. learns
c. throws balls
d. uses a car
6.
NIL: His mark for that question was nil.
a. very bad
b. nothing
c. very good
d. in the middle
7.
JUMP: She tried to jump.
a. lie on top of the water
b. get off the ground suddenly
c. stop the car at the edge of the road
d. move very fast
7.
PUB: They went to the pub.
a. place where people drink and talk
b. place that looks after money
c. large building with many shops
d. building for swimming
8.
SHOE: Where is your shoe?
a. the person who looks after you
b. the thing you keep your money in
c. the thing you use for writing
d. the thing you wear on your foot
8.
CIRCLE: Make a circle.
a. rough picture
b. space with nothing in it
c. round shape
d. large hole
9.
STANDARD: Her standards are very
high.
a. the bits at the back under her shoes
b. the marks she gets in school
c. the money she asks for
d. the levels she reaches in everything
9.
MICROPONE: Please use the microphone.
a. machine for making food hot
b. machine that makes sounds louder
c. machine that makes things look bigger
d. small telephone that can be carried around
10.
10.
BASIS: This was used as the basis.
a. answer
b. place to take a rest
c. next step
d. main part
PRO: He's a pro.
a. someone who is employed to find out
important secrets
b. a stupid person
c. someone who writes for a newspaper
d. someone who is paid for playing
sport etc
1
The test is created by Paul Nation, Victoria University of
Wellington, and found at http://www.lextutor.ca/. This test
is freely available and can be used by teachers and
researchers for a variety of purposes.
1
225
Third 1000
1.
SOLDIER: He is a soldier.
a. person in a business
b. student
c. person who uses metal
d. person in the army
2.
RESTORE: It has been restored.
a. said again
b. given to a different person
c. given a lower price
d. made like new again
3.
JUG: He was holding a jug.
a. A container for pouring liquids
b. an informal discussion
c. A soft cap
d. A weapon that explodes
Fourth 1000
1.
COMPOUND: They made a new
compound.
a. agreement
b. thing made of two or more parts
c. group of people forming a business
d. guess based on past experience
LATTER: I agree with the latter.
a. man from the church
b. reason given
c. last one
d. answer
3.
CANDID: Please be candid.
a. be careful
b. show sympathy
c. show fairness to both sides
d. say what you really think
4.
TUMMY: Look at my tummy.
a. cloth to cover the head
b. stomach
c. small furry animal
d. thumb
5.
QUIZ: We made a quiz.
a. thing to hold arrows
b. serious mistake
c. set of questions
d. box for birds to make nests in
4.
SCRUB: He is scrubbing it.
a. cutting shallow lines into it
b. repairing it
c. rubbing it hard to clean it
d. drawing simple pictures of it
5.
DINOSAUR: The children were pretending
to be dinosaurs.
a. robbers who work at sea
b. very small creatures with human
form but with wings
c. large creatures with wings that
breathe fire
d. animals that lived a long time ago
6.
6.
STRAP: He broke the strap.
a. promise
b. top cover
c. shallow dish for food
d. strip of material for holding things
together
INPUT: We need more input.
a. information, power, etc. put into
something
b. workers
c. artificial filling for a hole in wood
d. money
7.
7.
PAVE: It was paved.
a. prevented from going through
b. divided
c. given gold edges
d. covered with a hard surface
CRAB: Do you like crabs?
a. sea creatures that walk sideways
b. very thin small cakes
c. tight, hard collars
d. large black insects that sing at night
8.
8.
DASH: They dashed over it.
a. moved quickly
b. moved slowly
c. fought
d. looked quickly
VOCABULARY: You will need more
vocabulary.
a. words
b. skill
c. money
d. guns
9.
ROVE: He couldn't stop roving.
a. getting drunk
b. travelling around
c. making a musical sound through
closed lips
d. working hard
9.
REMEDY: We found a good remedy.
a. way to fix a problem
b. place to eat in public
c. way to prepare food
d. rule about numbers
10.
10.
LONESOME: He felt lonesome.
a. ungrateful
b. very tired
c. lonely
d. full of energy
ALLEGE: They alleged it.
a. claimed it without proof
b. stole the ideas for it from someone
else
c. provided facts to prove it
d. argued against the facts that
supported it
2
2.
226
Fifth 1000
1.
DEFICIT: The company had a large
deficit.
a. spent a lot more money than it
earned
b. went down a lot in value
c. had a plan for its spending that used
a lot of money
d. had a lot of money in the bank
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sixth 1000
1.
DEVIOUS: Your plans are devious.
a. tricky
b. well-developed
c. not well thought out
d. more expensive than necessary
WEEP: He wept.
a. finished his course
b. cried
c. died
d. worried
NUN: We saw a nun.
a. long thin creature that lives in the
earth
b. terrible accident
c. woman following a strict religious life
d. unexplained bright light in the sky
HAUNT: The house is haunted.
a. full of ornaments
b. rented
c. empty
d. full of ghosts
COMPOST: We need some compost.
a. strong support
b. help to feel better
c. hard stuff made of stones and sand
stuck together
d. rotted plant material
6.
CUBE: I need one more cube.
a. sharp thing used for joining things
b. solid square block
c. tall cup with no saucer
d. piece of stiff paper folded in half
7.
MINIATURE: It is a miniature.
a. a very small thing of its kind
b. an instrument to look at small objects
c. a very small living creature
d. a small line to join letters in handwriting
8.
PEEL: Shall I peel it?
a. let it sit in water for a long time
b. take the skin off it
c. make it white
d. cut it into thin pieces
9.
FRACTURE: They found a fracture.
a. break
b. small piece
c. short coat
d. rare jewel
10.
BACTERIUM: They didn't find a single
bacterium.
a. small living thing causing disease
b. plant with red or orange flowers
c. animal that carries water on its back
d. thing that has been stolen and sold
to a shop
3
2.
PREMIER: The premier spoke for an
hour.
a. person who works in a law court
b. university teacher
c. adventurer
d. head of the government
3.
BUTLER: They have a butler.
a. man servant
b. machine for cutting up trees
c. private teacher
d. cool dark room under the house
4.
ACCESSORY: They gave us some accessories.
a. papers allowing us to enter a country
b. official orders
c. ideas to choose between
d. extra pieces
5.
THRESHOLD: They raised the threshold.
a. flag
b. point or line where something changes
c. roof inside a building
d. cost of borrowing money
6.
THESIS: She has completed her thesis.
a. long written report of study carried out
for a university degree
b. talk given by a judge at the end of a
trial
c. first year of employment after
becoming a teacher
d. extended course of hospital treatment
7.
STRANGLE: He strangled her.
a. killed her by pressing her throat
b. gave her all the things she wanted
c. took her away by force
d. admired her greatly
8.
CAVALIER: He treated her in a cavalier manner.
a. without care
b. politely
c. awkwardly
d. as a brother would
9.
MALIGN: His malign influence is still felt.
a. evil
b. good
c. very important
d. secret
10.
VEER: The car veered.
a. went suddenly in another direction
b. moved shakily
c. made a very loud noise
d. slid sideways without the wheels turning
227
Seventh 1000
1.
OLIVE: We bought olives.
a. oily fruit
b. scented pink or red flowers
c. men's clothes for swimming
d. tools for digging up weeds
Eighth 1000
1.
ERRATIC: He was erratic.
a. without fault
b. very bad
c. very polite
d. unsteady
2.
QUILT: They made a quilt.
a. statement about who should get their
property when they die
b. firm agreement
c. thick warm cover for a bed
d. feather pen
2.
PALETTE: He lost his palette.
a. basket for carrying fish
b. wish to eat food
c. young female companion
d. artist's board for mixing paints
3.
STEALTH: They did it by stealth.
a. spending a large amount of money
b. hurting someone so much that they
agreed to their demands
c. moving secretly with extreme care and
quietness
d. taking no notice of problems they met
3.
NULL: His influence was null.
a. had good results
b. was unhelpful
c. had no effect
d. was long-lasting
4.
KINDERGARTEN: This is a good
kindergarten.
a. activity that allows you to forget your
worries
b. place of learning for children too young
for school
c. strong, deep bag carried on the back
d. place where you may borrow books
4.
SHUDDER: The boy shuddered.
a. spoke with a low voice
b. almost fell
c. shook
d. called out loudly
5.
BRISTLE: The bristles are too hard.
a. questions
b. short stiff hairs
c. folding beds
d. bottoms of the shoes
5.
ECLIPSE: There was an eclipse.
a. a strong wind
b. a loud noise of something hitting the water
c. The killing of a large number of people
d. The sun hidden by a planet
6.
BLOC: They have joined this bloc.
a. musical group
b. band of thieves
c. small group of soldiers who are sent ahead
of others
d. group of countries sharing a purpose
6.
MARROW: This is the marrow.
a. symbol that brings good luck to a team
b. Soft centre of a bone
c. control for guiding a plane
d. increase in salary
7.
DEMOGRAPHY: This book is about demography.
a. the study of patterns of land use
b. the study of the use of pictures to show facts
about numbers
c. the study of the movement of water
d. the study of population
7.
LOCUST: There were hundreds of locusts.
a. insects with wings
b. unpaid helpers
c. people who do not eat meat
d. brightly coloured wild flowers
8.
8.
GIMMICK: That's a good gimmick.
a. thing for standing on to work high above
the ground
b. small thing with pockets to hold money
c. attention-getting action or thing
d. clever plan or trick
AUTHENTIC: It is authentic.
a. real
b. very noisy
c. Old
d. Like a desert
9.
CABARET: We saw the cabaret.
a. painting covering a whole wall
b. song and dance performance
c. small crawling insect
d. person who is half fish, half woman
10.
MUMBLE: He started to mumble.
a. think deeply
b. shake uncontrollably
c. stay further behind the others
d. speak in an unclear way
9.
10.
AZALEA: This azalea is very pretty.
a. small tree with many flowers growing in
groups
b. light material made from natural threads
c. long piece of material worn by women in
India
d. sea shell shaped like a fan
YOGHURT: This yoghurt is disgusting.
a. grey mud found at the bottom of rivers
b. unhealthy, open sore
c. thick, soured milk, often with sugar and
flavouring
d. large purple fruit with soft flesh
4
228
Ninth 1000
1.
HALLMARK: Does it have a hallmark?
a. stamp to show when to use it by
b. stamp to show the quality
c. mark to show it is approved by the
royal family
d. Mark or stain to prevent copying
2.
PURITAN: He is a puritan.
a. person who likes attention
b. person with strict morals
c. person with a moving home
d. person who hates spending money
3.
MONOLOGUE: Now he has a monologue.
a. single piece of glass to hold over his
eye to help him to see better
b. long turn at talking without being
interrupted
c. position with all the power
d. picture made by joining letters
together in interesting ways
4.
WEIR: We looked at the weir.
a. person who behaves strangely
b. wet, muddy place with water plants
c. old metal musical instrument played
by blowing
d. thing built across a river to control
the water
5.
WHIM: He had lots of whims.
a. old gold coins
b. female horses
c. strange ideas with no motive
d. sore red lumps
6.
PERTURB: I was perturbed.
a. made to agree
b. Worried
c. very puzzled
d. very wet
7.
REGENT: They chose a regent.
a. an irresponsible person
b. a person to run a meeting for a time
c. a ruler acting in place of the king
d. a person to represent them
8.
OCTOPUS: They saw an octopus.
a. a large bird that hunts at night
b. a ship that can go under water
c. a machine that flies by means of
turning blades
d. a sea creature with eight legs
9.
FEN: The story is set in the fens.
a. low land partly covered by water
b. a piece of high land with few trees
c. a block of poor-quality houses in a city
d. a time long ago
10.
LINTEL: He painted the lintel.
a. Beam over the top of a door or window
b. small boat used for getting to land from
a big boat
c. beautiful tree with spreading branches
and green fruit
d. board showing the scene in a theatre
Tenth 1000
1.
AWE: They looked at the mountain with awe.
a. worry
b. interest
c. wonder
d. respect
5
2.
PEASANTRY: He did a lot for the peasantry.
a. local people
b. place of worship
c. businessmen's club
d. poor farmers
3.
EGALITARIAN: This organization is egalitarian.
a. does not provide much information about itself to
the public
b. dislikes change
c. frequently asks a court of law for a judgement
d. treats everyone who works for it as if they are
equal
4.
MYSTIQUE: He has lost his mystique.
a. his healthy body
b. the secret way he makes other people think
he has special power or skill
c. the woman who has been his lover while he is
married to someone else
d. the hair on his top lip
5.
UPBEAT: I'm feeling really upbeat about it.
a. upset
b. good
c. hurt
d. confused
6.
CRANNY: We found it in the cranny!
a. sale of unwanted objects
b. narrow opening
c. space for storing things under the
roof of a house
d. large wooden box
7.
PIGTAIL: Does she have a pigtail?
a. a rope of hair made by twisting bits together
b. a lot of cloth hanging behind a dress
c. a plant with pale pink flowers that hang down
in short bunches
d. a lover
8.
CROWBAR: He used a crowbar.
a. heavy iron pole with a curved end
b. false name
c. sharp tool for making holes in leather
d. light metal walking stick
9.
RUCK: He got hurt in the ruck.
a. hollow between the stomach and the
top of the leg
b. pushing and shoving
c. group of players gathered round the
ball in some ball games
d. race across a field of snow
10.
LECTERN: He stood at the lectern.
a. desk to hold a book at a height for reading
b. table or block used for church sacrifices
c. place where you buy drinks
d. very edge
229
Eleventh 1000
1.
EXCRETE: This was excreted recently.
a. pushed or sent out
b. made clear
c. discovered by a science experiment
d. put on a list of illegal things
Twelfth 1000
1.
HAZE: We looked through the haze.
a. small round window in a ship
b. unclear air
c. strips of wood or plastic to cover a window
d. list of names
2.
MUSSEL: They bought mussels.
a. small glass balls for playing a game
b. shellfish
c. large purple fruits
d. pieces of soft paper to keep the
clothes clean when eating
2.
SPLEEN: His spleen was damaged.
a. knee bone
b. organ found near the stomach
c. pipe taking waste water from a house
d. respect for himself
3.
YOGA: She has started yoga.
a. handwork done by knotting thread
b. a form of exercise for body and mind
c. a game where a cork stuck with feathers
is hit between two players
d. a type of dance from eastern countries
3.
4.
COUNTERCLAIM: They made a counterclaim.
a. a demand made by one side in a law case
to match the other side's demand
b. a request for a shop to take back things
with faults
c. An agreement between two companies to
exchange work
d. a top cover for a bed
SOLILOQUY: That was an excellent soliloquy!
a. song for six people
b. short clever saying with a deep
meaning
c. entertainment using lights and
music
d. speech in the theatre by a character
who is alone
4.
REPTILE: She looked at the reptile.
a. old hand-written book
b. animal with cold blood and a hard outside
c. person who sells things by knocking on
doors
d. picture made by sticking many small
pieces of different colours together
5.
PUMA: They saw a puma.
a. small house made of mud bricks
b. tree from hot, dry countries
c. very strong wind that sucks up
anything in its path
d. large wild cat
5.
ALUM: This contains alum.
a. a poisonous substance from a common plant
b. a soft material made of artificial threads
c. a tobacco powder once put in the nose
d. a chemical compound usually involving
aluminium
6.
PALLOR: His pallor caused them concern.
a. his unusually high temperature
b. his lack of interest in anything
c. his group of friends
d. the paleness of his skin
6.
REFECTORY: We met in the refectory.
a. room for eating
b. office where legal papers can be signed
c. room for several people to sleep in
d. room with glass walls for growing plants
7.
APERITIF: She had an aperitif.
a. a long chair for lying on with just one
place to rest an arm
b. a private singing teacher
c. a large hat with tall feathers
d. a drink taken before a meal
7.
CAFFEINE: This contains a lot of caffeine.
a. a substance that makes you sleepy
b. threads from very tough leaves
c. ideas that are not correct
d. a substance that makes you excited
8.
HUTCH: Please clean the hutch.
a. thing with metal bars to keep dirt out of
water pipes
b. space in the back of a car for bags
c. metal piece in the middle of a bicycle wheel
d. cage for small animals
8.
IMPALE: He nearly got impaled.
a. charged with a serious offence
b. put in prison
c. stuck through with a sharp instrument
d. involved in a dispute
9.
9.
EMIR: We saw the emir.
a. bird with long curved tail feathers
b. woman who cares for other people's
children in Eastern countries
c. Middle Eastern chief with power in his land
d. house made from blocks of ice
COVEN: She is the leader of a coven.
a. a small singing group
b. a business that is owned by the workers
c. a secret society
d. a group of church women who follow a strict
religious life
10.
10.
HESSIAN: She bought some hessian.
a. oily pinkish fish
b. stuff producing a happy state of mind
c. coarse cloth
d. strong-tasting root for flavouring food
TRILL: He practised the trill.
a. ornament in a piece of music
b. type of stringed instrument
c. Way of throwing a ball
d. dance step of turning round very fast
on the toes
6
230
Thirteenth 1000
1.
UBIQUITOUS: Many weeds are ubiquitous.
a. are difficult to get rid of
b. have long, strong roots
c. are found in most countries
d. die away in the winter
2.
TALON: Just look at those talons!
a. high points of mountains
b. sharp hooks on the feet of a hunting bird
c. heavy metal coats to protect against weapons
d. people who make fools of themselves without
realizing it
3.
ROUBLE: He had a lot of roubles.
a. very precious red stones
b. distant members of his family
c. Russian money
d. moral or other difficulties in the mind
4.
JOVIAL: He was very jovial.
a. low on the social scale
b. likely to criticize others
c. full of fun
d. friendly
5.
COMMUNIQUE: I saw their communiqué.
a. critical report about an organization
b. garden owned by many members of a
community
c. printed material used for advertising
d. official announcement
6.
Fourteenth 1000
1.
CANONICAL: These are canonical
examples.
a. examples which break the usual rules
b. examples taken from a religious book
c. regular and widely accepted examples
d. examples discovered very recently
PLANKTON: We saw a lot of plankton.
a. poisonous weeds that spread very quickly
b. very small plants or animals found in
water
c. trees producing hard wood
d. grey clay that often causes land to slip
ATOP: He was atop the hill.
a. at the bottom of
b. at the top of
c. on this side of
d. on the far side of
3.
MARSUPIAL: It is a marsupial.
a. an animal with hard feet
b. a plant that grows for several years
c. a plant with flowers that turn to face
the sun
d. an animal with a pocket for babies
4.
AUGUR: It augured well.
a. promised good things for the future
b. agreed well with what was expected
c. had a colour that looked good with
something else
d. rang with a clear, beautiful sound
5.
BAWDY: It was very bawdy.
a. unpredictable
b. enjoyable
c. rushed
d. rude
6.
GAUCHE: He was gauche.
a. talkative
b. flexible
c. awkward
d. determined
7.
SKYLARK: We watched a skylark.
a. show with aeroplanes flying in patterns
b. man-made object going round the earth
c. person who does funny tricks
d. small bird that flies high as it sings
7.
THESAURUS: She used a thesaurus.
a. a kind of dictionary
b. a chemical compound
c. a special way of speaking
d. an injection just under the skin
8.
BEAGLE: He owns two beagles.
a. fast cars with roofs that fold down
b. large guns that can shoot many
people quickly
c. small dogs with long ears
d. houses built at holiday places
8.
ERYTHROCYTE: It is an erythrocyte.
a. a medicine to reduce pain
b. a red part of the blood
c. a reddish white metal
d. a member of the whale family
9.
ATOLL: The atoll was beautiful.
a. low island made of coral round a
sea-water lake
b. work of art created by weaving
pictures from fine thread
c. small crown with many precious
jewels worn in the evening by women
d. place where a river flows through a
narrow place full of large rocks
9.
CORDILLERA: They were stopped by the
cordillera.
a. a special law
b. an armed ship
c. a line of mountains
d. the eldest son of the king
10.
LIMPID: He looked into her limpid eyes.
a. clear
b. tearful
c. deep brown
d. beautiful
10.
DIDACTIC: The story is very didactic.
a. tries hard to teach something
b. is very difficult to believe
c. deals with exciting actions
d. is written in a way which makes the
reader unsure of the meaning
7
2.